The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Department for Learning and Employment Bill: Second Stage

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Department for Learning and Employment Bill [NIA 12/00] be agreed.
Members will be aware that I have been considering changing the current title of this Department for some time. Its undue length has caused continual problems. I have become the Minister of Further Education, the Minister of Further and Higher Education, the Minister of Higher and Further Education, the Minister of Training, the Minister of Training and Employment and the Minister of Employment. I might enjoy being perceived as carrying all those different Ministries on my back, but, Members may agree that, regardless of the length of the Department’s title, its acronym is an unfortunate one. Therefore, after much thought, I have come to the view that the title ought to be the Department for Learning and Employment.
Several other options were considered, but we concluded that the option chosen neatly encapsulates the key themes of the Department, namely, lifelong learning and preparing people for employment. I assure Members that changing the Department’s title will have no significant cost implications for the Department or its customers. As no new regulations are proposed by the Bill, there will be no adverse impact on business; neither will the Bill have any impact on equal opportunities.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Committee was grateful to the Minister for consultation about this Bill at the pre-draft stage. In broad terms we welcome it, because, as the Minister has just said, the acronym often associated with the Department — DHFETE — has been unfortunate, given efforts to encourage people to enter into higher and further education and lifelong learning as a whole. By changing the Department’s name, we will remove at least one thing to which the diary column in the business supplement of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ repeatedly refers.
There is a need for a new and shorter title, but it must cover the broad areas of the Department’s remit. We note that the Minister said that there would be no regulatory impact from the change and that the cost implications would be insignificant. At the next stage of the Bill’s passage, the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee hopes to discover whether there are any cost implications. I say that partly because of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s 1999-2000 report, which detailed the Training and Employment Agency’s failure to follow proper purchasing procedures when it was developing a new corporate identity and promoting and re-imaging the New Deal and the jobcentres. The Public Accounts Committee will be pursuing the matter, and our Committee will watch its deliberations with interest.
The Committee welcomes the proposal.

Dr Sean Farren: The costs associated with the name change will be quite low. Given the strong possibility that the proposal will meet with Members’ approval, the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has kept its stationery supplies to a minimum — just enough to cope with current business. The costs for stationery and signage, additional to ongoing costs, are not likely to be more than £10,000 to £15,000. Further details will be available at later stages of the Bill’s passage. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for his support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Department for Learning and Employment Bill [NIA 12/00] be agreed.

Victims: Peace II Programme

Mr Denis Haughey: I beg to move
That this Assembly welcomes the inclusion of a specific measure for victims in the European Peace II programme.
I welcome this chance to draw attention to the real opportunities that the Peace II funding provides for victims. It is significant that a specific measure has been developed to which only individual victims and victims’ groups will have access.
The funding package amounts to approximately £6·67 million, and it will provide significant additional resources to this important and often marginalised section of society. Peace II funding will allow important work to be taken forward in a range of areas but will concentrate on reskilling, retraining and re-employment, so that those who have often been excluded from education and employment opportunities will benefit most.
The Peace II funding should also be seen in the context of the overall funding package available for victims. The Victims Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister allocated £420,000 in the past financial year to several projects and initiatives.
In the next few days my Colleague Minister Nesbitt and myself will meet our NorthernIreland Office counterpart, Mr Adam Ingram MP, to discuss the allocation of £9 million of funding recently announced by his Department. It is vital that we work with him on this issue and that funding is targeted in a meaningful way at the most important areas.
The £6·67million provided for victims in the PeaceII package is an important part of the total package of targeted funding and gives a clear indication of the Executive’s desire to tackle the issues in a proactive manner. I look forward to a positive discussion and debate on these matters, and I know that everyone present will welcome this very important step in addressing the needs of victims.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the announcement as a positive step towards recognising the needs of people hurt so badly by the troubles. The European Union has a vital role to play in this process not just in the short term but for many years to come. The needs of victims and their families cannot be resolved in the short term. It is a long and painful process that will continue many years after the majority of Assembly Members have gone. That has been the experience in other parts of the world where conflict caused suffering and hardship to many people, but the conflict cannot, and will not, continue.
The peace that we now enjoy has been inspired in many ways by the European experience dating back not just to the second world war but for many years beyond that. We all have some experience of the suffering endured over the years by people from all sections of the community. In a graveyard near my home there is an inscription on a tombstone which reads "An innocent victim of the troubles". People in the future will, without doubt, read that inscription and understand to a point. However, they can never really understand the suffering or the needs of the people who were affected. They will not know that family life for everyone in that house was turned upside down. Their lives, their careers and their plans for the future were shattered. Even today, they are struggling to rebuild what was destroyed a few years ago. Assistance to retrain and reskill is critical for this family and for many other families affected during the 30years of the troubles.
Mr Haughey’s announcement today about funding is a recognition which will assist the needs of the victims in a very positive way. That was a promise made, and I am more than pleased that it has now been honoured. It is the first milestone on a long and torturous road for people. That road will have many corners and many hazards. I hope that in the future the European PeaceII programme will continue to support those victims as they put their lives together again and face the future. The victims cannot be left behind. We have a duty as politicians to help them on their way. There is, as I have said, a notion that victims can be given a quick fix, a cheque in the post. Such notions are not only mistaken but also insulting to those who matter most — the victims.
Today there is a recognition that the process includes resources to retrain, reskill and rebuild lives. Let us hope that we can build on our experience to ensure that this support is used wisely and in consultation with those who need it, and those for whom it was intended. Above all, let us be aware that it is only a beginning. No one should be surprised if, in the distant future, politicians are still coping with the hurt caused during the troubles. The hurt has been great for all our people, and the healing process has to be inclusive. To address the problem in a selective or divisive way would only delay the whole process of reconciliation.
Today’s announcement is a very positive step. It is a recognition that people’s lives were turned upside down by the troubles and that there is now a caring Assembly which, with the support of European funding, is prepared to help those people to rebuild their lives and to assist them on the journey onwards. This is a historic day for the Assembly and an important day for the European Union as a whole. I particularly welcome the announcement.

Mr Paul Berry: I have an interest — like many in the Chamber — in this subject because not only had I a relative murdered by terrorists but I saw at first hand the difficulty that real victims have in getting financial help following their loss. In February, the Assembly was told by the First Minister, Mr Trimble, that, under the Peace II programme, victims of violence and ex-prisoners will be regarded as target groups for assistance. The EU programme will also include a specific measure for victims, with funding of approximately £6·6 million. Our MEPs also need to be praised for the work and effort that they have put in to secure this money.
There is a very serious anomaly. Far too often victims and ex-prisoners are included together. There are far more ex-prisoners’ groups — which exist to milk this system — than there are victims’ groups. When we hear that millions of pounds will be available for this section as a whole, it does not necessarily mean that the victims will get the lion’s share of the money. Several months ago a question was put by Mr Dodds to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, about £6 million being allocated to ex-prisoners’ groups. Some £4·5 million of that came from the EU peace money and £1·5 million came from the Government.
There is a genuine need to ensure that the real victims receive money. That is evident when we see the ability of numerous groups to apply for, or claim, money on spurious grounds. For example, huge sums of money have been paid out by the Ministry of Defence for alleged injury, for the death of animals, or for the loss of, or damage to, silage in the border areas due to helicopter activity. Money has been squandered throughout the whole system. The money must now be very much focused on the innocent victims. The vast numbers of fraudulent claims serve to confirm that there is an indisputable danger of giving taxpayers’ money to fraudsters. We see that also in the huge sums that were paid to the Ex-Prisoners Interpretive Centre (EPIC) — an organisation funded to deal with ex-prisoners.
These points all raise crucial questions. How many of those groups that have sprung up over the last decade, claiming to deal with all kinds of people related to the troubles, are legitimate? I refer Members to one group in the Maze Prison which received money for a fly-fishing course. It is not rocket science to realise that all too often there are scams of one sort or another being carried out. Undoubtedly, Republicans will moan that we are claiming there to be, and creating, a hierarchy of suffering. One thing is clear: the grief of those whose relatives were brutally murdered by terrorists is not the same as that of those who cry over terrorists who were killed. If the latter have any grief, it ought to be only for those whom their terrorist friends killed.
I wrote numerous letters on the subject to the Minister then responsible for victims’ issues, Mr Adam Ingram. I have also put many questions to the two junior Ministers, who are present today. One of the things that stand out from raising the issue with Mr Ingram is the uncertainty of funding for the victims year after year. By contrast, there is no shortage of money for those who created the victims in the first place. That too is a source of anguish among victims’ support groups.
Another issue must be addressed, and I trust that the junior Ministers will take it on board today. It is that of the widows of UDR and RIR personnel, who have been overlooked in all of this. It is imperative that they be included as well. We welcome the additional money that was provided for the RUC widows. People whose loved ones were murdered because they were members of the UDR or RIR were very concerned at being treated differently. There should be equal recognition for all those in the security forces. We trust that UDR and RIR widows will be highlighted under this programme.
The notion that you can treat the victims and perpetrators of violence equally concerns me. That philosophy underlies much of the money that is being distributed under the peace and reconciliation fund. It is a clear signal of moral bankruptcy. It is my contention that there is no equivalence between them.
I am also concerned that because we have Sinn Féin/IRA sitting in government their influence will extend to ensuring that their own political clique gets more recognition than the real victims. Even though they jump up and down proclaiming how much they care about victims, the reality is that, under their ideology, even terrorists are victims. This aims to overthrow all right thinking. It is the old idea of calling evil good.
There is a very real concern that money earmarked for victims should go to the real victims. It should not go to people whom political correctness deems appropriate.
I trust that we will get assurances from the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers that innocent victims will be catered for and that they will receive the funding they need and deserve. We are all aware of the suffering and anguish that has been caused over the past 30 years or more by the loss of loved ones who have been tragically and evilly taken away. I also trust we can be assured that innocent victims will not be provided for under the same banner as ex-prisoners’ groups.
It is a matter of great concern. We have raised it in the past and will continue to raise it. I trust that the junior Ministers will take up with the relevant Ministers the points that I have raised today, for it is not only a matter of funding for the victims. Many times we have heard that it is not just a matter of money: it is also a matter of justice.
There have been many murders in the area I represent — South Armagh — and other border areas. When I raised the issue of an inquiry with the Security Minister, Mr Adam Ingram, he replied to me on 13 March 2001 saying that an inquiry would be counterproductive and would jeopardise the investigations. As I said earlier, this is not just about funding; it is also about justice. Mr Ingram went on to say that the perpetrators of all unsolved murders in Northern Ireland should be brought to justice. I find it very sad that the perpetrators are being funded by the Government and by the Assembly. All these points need to be taken on board. Not only does funding need to be provided but justice needs to be seen to be done in this country.

Mrs Eileen Bell: It will come as no surprise to anyone in the Assembly that I welcome the motion. I have worked with victims for the last 20 or 30 years and I know that this will be an encouragement to them.
Soon after the ceasefires were announced in 1994 I talked to several women from all parts of the community who had lost relatives through violent deaths. They hoped that the acknowledgement of their loss and the trauma of their experiences, and those of the many like them, would now be made in an open and appropriate manner.
Some years on, after the Good Friday Agreement and the referendum, I spoke to the same people again and they made exactly the same point. However, they made it in a much more cynical way. I have worked with groups, organisations and individuals who have been concerned by the apparent inaction and total disinterest in their plight and the plight of all those who were affected by the troubles.
I am sure that people have heard the word "acknowledgement" many times. These women have been concerned about that, as opposed to the high profile they have seen given regularly to prisoners, for whatever justifiable reasons.
The Victims Liaison Unit has done a very good job in encouraging and bringing together organisations and groups that work with victims and for victims. The Bloomfield Report highlighted the problems faced by victims. Many publications about the troubles and their victims recount horrific stories. All victims display admirable tolerance. However, there are always comments on the lack of acknowledgement and often the lack of interest from politicians and the public for victims. While compiling his report, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield spoke of the great sympathy he felt for the victims whose stories he was told and of his admiration for how those people had reacted and coped with the horrific events in their lives.
The Victims Liaison Unit was set up to implement the recommendations made in the Bloomfield Report ‘We Will Remember Them’. The unit has done a great deal of good in bringing victims groups and individuals together, assessing needs and developing the Government’s policy towards victims and survivors. It also set up Touchstone, the umbrella group for victims’ organisations. The unit runs seminars and conferences with the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust to highlight and discuss situations in these most sensitive areas. It also funds projects, including the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, which provide bursaries to dependants. This work must be carried on, as I am sure it will be by the Victims Unit with assistance from the Victims Liaison Unit
The recently established Victims Unit, which is in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is working with the Victims Liaison Unit to improve the situation of those most recently affected by the troubles in a practical way. I believe that Mr McGrady said that the Victims Unit is committed to improving services to victims by 2002.
Peace II moneys will undoubtedly play a significant part in meeting this challenge, and it is fitting that the European Union continues to play a direct supporting role in this area of regeneration.
It is essential that the standards of provision be assessed and that financial assistance be allocated where it is most needed. I hope that the Victims Unit and the Victims Liaison Unit will do that. The £420,000 announced by the junior Ministers last week was welcome, and the promise of another £9 million will go some way towards addressing the needs of victims and their organisations with basic measures such as counselling, befriending, retraining and community unemployment projects.
There has been talk of a hierarchy of victims. In fact, there has been talk this morning of "innocent" victims, and I am still trying to figure out exactly what that means. Regardless of the definitions given by others we should not allow the needs and hopes of those who have already been disadvantaged by acts of terror and sectarianism to be curtailed by manipulation. The Bloomfield Report said that victims are those people — men, women and children — directly affected by the troubles. It is not for us to determine degrees of victims or to monopolise victims. We should never let victims become pawns in a political game — as many of them fear they are.
The Assembly should pledge itself to ensuring that all victims are treated with trust and care and are given practical, relevant help to achieve their aims and to take advantage of every opportunity. Victims should have easy access to information on finance, counselling, medical help and other support as necessary. It may well be that a victims’ minister will have to be appointed, but at the moment we need to look to the junior Ministers, who have been tasked with this responsibility. I know they are committed to victims, and the Committee of the Centre will work with them.
Peace II money and other measures will contribute to an open acknowledgement of the price victims have paid. It will provide the Government and other involved bodies with the finance to allow the furtherance of such projects that will help victims enjoy full citizenship in the new Northern Ireland that we all hope for and are working towards. We must address the legacy of the conflict. We must do it for all victims and we must do it together.

Mr Norman Boyd: I welcome the fact that financial assistance will be given to the innocent victims of terrorism, but there are several points that need to be clarified regarding the claim that there are specific measures for victims in the European Peace II programme. There is no specific definition of "victim" in the programme. The term is used to mean many things to many people. Mrs Bell made light of the term "innocent victim". However, it is essential that a distinction be made between innocent victims of terrorism and those who were clearly involved in terrorist acts, who, regrettably are also described by many as victims.
It is morally wrong and an insult to the many innocent victims when they are referred to by some in authority in the same manner as those who committed the very heinous acts against them and their families. The needs of innocent victims should be addressed, and not simply in monetary terms as some Members appear to believe.
The First Minister, in an article in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ at the weekend, claimed that they had been attempting to address the needs of the bereaved and injured. That is an insult to the many innocent victims.
The First Minister and other pro-Agreement Members have caused untold hurt to the innocent victims of terrorism by endorsing the release of prisoners who are guilty of the most heinous of crimes and supporting an amnesty for those convicted of terrorist acts. The First Minister has also supported their elevation into the very heart of the Government.
For the First Minister and others to refer in their recent publication to a one-stop shop for victims is insensitive and indeed an insult. The attitude that innocent victims can be bought off with a monetary payment is adding insult to injury. The First Minister’s claim that he is championing a public inquiry into IRA/Garda collusion rings hollow, considering his support for the early release of terrorist prisoners and an amnesty for convicted terrorists. In the words of Mrs Sylvia Callaghan, whose son was murdered in the Ballykelly bombing,
"Any deal that benefits terrorists by putting them in positions of authority in our land is an insult to the memory of my son, murdered by the people the authorities are now falling over themselves to placate."
The most important step that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could take to ease the pain of the innocent victims is to endorse the exclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA from government. It would also be a positive gesture to the victims if the First Minister were to donate his Nobel Peace Prize money to the innocent victims rather than retain it for himself. I call on him today in this Chamber to do so without further delay.
The innocent victims in the Unionist community have little confidence in the administration of EU funding by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust (NIVT). Payments to terrorist prisoners between 1995 and 1999 under the European Union Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation amounted to more than £6 million. Under the Peace II programme, £6·7 million has been given out for victims, and £6 million was also given for prisoners under Peace I. How much will be given to prisoners under the Peace II programme?
The grants in the Peace I programme were used to provide education and training, resource centres, minibuses for prison visits — including training of drivers to gain their HGV licences — guitar and yoga lessons. This was all for prisoners in the Maze prison; a computer was also provided for female prisoners in Maghaberry prison. This is disgraceful; the funding would have been better spent on the innocent victims of terrorist violence who have suffered throughout the last 30 years.
To compound the hurt even further, NIVT — in my view, a completely discredited body —which administers this European funding, recently authorised the paltry sum of £2,000 for the families acting for innocent relatives. This is one of the largest victims groups in Northern Ireland, made up of several hundred RUC, UDR and RIR widows.
It is disgraceful that terrorist prisoners are receiving such large amounts, yet innocent victims receive very little or, in some cases, nothing at all. NIVT is a discredited body in the Unionist community, and, as a priority, I am calling for an independent report to be compiled into its administration and allocation of grants under the Peace I programme. No further funding should be given to prisoners, ex-prisoners or their families; the resources that are available under the Peace II programme should instead be channelled towards the real victims of terror and their victim groups, together with the many innocent victims who are not members of any victim groups and have had to endure agony, often in silence, with little or no support.
In closing, I want to highlight the poor attendance in the Chamber today. There are fewer than 30 Members out of 108 to discuss the important and essential issue of victims.

Mr Denis Watson: In supporting this motion, I welcome the announcement that has been made. I also put on record our thanks to our MEPs, our Government and those responsible for making this funding available under PeaceII. It is rather ironic that some of our victims’ groups got very little money under PeaceI. I listened with interest to MrBoyd when he hinted — and it does beg the question — that those administering the funds then were working to their own political agenda. Certainly, the victims did not get their fair share of funding. MrBoyd referred to Families Acting for Innocent Relatives (FAIR), and I understand that that group, together with Victims of Injustice Campaigning for Equality (VOICE) and Homes United by Ruthless Terror (HURT), travelled to Brussels in April2000, where they lobbied successfully to ensure that there would be a line in the budget earmarked for victims of terrorist violence. Those — indeed, all — victims’ groups need to be treated as a priority.
To ensure that this is not lost in the debate, I want to say that the peace dividend needs to get down to the victims as quickly as possible. This has not yet happened. Core posts are needed in the sector, and they are essential if the excellent support work for victims is to continue and develop. We know that the work of the victims’ groups is expanding at an exceptional rate, and support is needed quickly.
MrBoyd touched on discrimination. In the past, those groups which include members of the security forces have found that they have been discriminated against. We need guarantees that that will not happen. This needs to be made abundantly clear in relation to any funding from PeaceII. Guarantees are also needed that groups with a proven track record of excellent work will be given all the resources they need to do the work that no one else is doing. They must be able to demonstrate good management practice, good value for money and good care for their members and staff. They must be treated as priority groups in the sector in future.
I agree with Mr Berry about the measures that need to be taken for the UDR and RIR widows. I hope that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will address that matter. I hope that an anomaly will also be addressed. Past members of the RUC who left the force perhaps a few weeks before they were murdered are not included in arrangements for the RUC. I urge that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister address that matter.

Mr David Ervine: This can be nothing other than a difficult subject to deal with. If not every group of victims is named, I suppose some are being left out and others elevated. When the blood runs in the street, as the brain is splattered against the wall, the blood does not know the victim’s religion or political affiliation, or even his age. Our society, however, does not have one hierarchy of victims about which we hear, but a series of such hierarchies. Each group, each faction, elevates its victims or perceived victims above the victims or perceived victims of others.
I do not know whether this is any consolation at all to the widows, the widowers, the children or the parents. People who never knew the husbands, wives, sons or daughters have a bitterness and a hatred for them, and in death — even in death — a sense of detestation continues as if those people had been known intimately. It brings to mind the sense of communal pain felt in society, that sense felt by the diaspora. That communal pain is more evident when it is realised that those furthest away from the war are very often those who want the war to be fought most of all.
Recently I had a conversation with some victims. I asked them what I might do. Their reply was "Do not do anything for me publicly. If you have anything to do for me, it will be with the statutory agencies, which can affect my life in practical ways. If you espouse my cause publicly, I will not be sure whether you are doing it because of the value you place on me or because of the value you place on being heard by an electorate that might feel that you are fighting a good battle for them."
The nature of a divided society is that you cannot fight a good battle for someone without also fighting a good battle against someone. In a way we are all victims. The children, who came into this society with absolute innocence, were imbued with a traditional attitude from wherever they came, and that probably ensured that, in their separate ways, they found their paths to the jails and to the graveyards.
Something happened to us. Rather than play the game of supremacy that both sides play — especially with victims — would we not be better asking "What happened to us?" We stood the victims and their relatives side by side to make a line that forms the milestones to show us how far we had to come and how awful we had become before we began to make changes in this society. They also became the bulwarks against our capacity to revert back to what we once were.
Nothing is perfect. For those of us who have the luxury, there is an opportunity for life to be wonderful. Unfortunately, there are those on all sides whose lives will never be wonderful again. The sense of loss, with no intimate touches, no sharing of thoughts, no arguments, no smiles: that is a human experience. Whether you are Protestant or Catholic, Nationalist or Unionist, Loyalist or Republican, there can be no denying that we are all human beings who need to start pulling a curtain down on the past.
We will not forget where we have been, or what we have done, but perhaps as we move away from the brutality and the awfulness of the past, we will find a way to expurgate our guilt and our grief. We might be able to confront what happened to us: why we did the things we did; why we had the simplicity we had; why we lived with the ghosts, the myths and the shibboleths that allowed us to take life. Never mind venerating victims — it allowed us to take life.
Our choices are clear. Either we offer people succour and comfort in their time of need, or we are a failed society. Leave any one of them out and we wound ourselves. There are victims’ groups, and I am certain that they take great comfort from their fellowship, but there are individuals — ordinary people — suffering behind closed doors. Rather than simply going on a rant of my personal opinions, let me try and do something practical. It is vital that those with authority are proactive in helping victims. It will be easy to identify the victims’ groups but much harder to identify the individual sufferers, those who do not want that fellowship, those who do not want to be used as pawns in a political game, those who prefer to live isolated lives.
What are we doing that is proactive for those individuals? Are we rapping on the doors to offer them society’s help or are we waiting until they come to the door with a begging bowl? When we talk about the Peace II initiatives, I would like to know what we are going to do. I advocate that the two junior Ministers take back to their respective leaders the importance of being proactive and say that any single, unrecognised victim diminishes this society.

Ms Jane Morrice: We welcome the motion. However, I am a little confused, if not somewhat bemused, as to the reason for its being before us. If it is about creating greater awareness of what is on offer for those who have suffered throughout the many years of troubles, it is certainly extremely valuable. As Mr Ervine said, we need to be extremely proactive about letting people know what is available and what can be done to help victims. It is vital that we ensure that there is greater awareness of this subject.
However, if the purpose of this motion is to enable us to take credit, it is of no value. Taking credit or praising oneself for doing something which people in authority should have been doing for many, many years is not something that I welcome. However, I will give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that the reason we are discussing this today is that victims, victims’ groups, people who have suffered and people who, as Mr Ervine said, suffer "behind closed doors" and do not know how to come forward will now know that this help is available to them and that they must come forward. We would definitely like to be much more specific about exactly what is available. We do need to go out to let victims know what is available to them.
I want to dwell for a moment on a history lesson. As head of the European Commission office in 1994, I was involved in setting up the first peace programme. In the negotiations with Brussels on Peace I, the needs of victims were very much on the table and were being discussed by civil servants and fonctionnaires in Brussels and here. Pushed by Europe, there was support for victims and victims’ groups under Peace I, though, without any doubt, there was not nearly enough. Our hope must be that in Peace II much more is made available in this specific measure for victims.
I also remind Members that when the first draft of the Peace II programme was issued well over a year ago, several Assembly Members were at the presentation in the Long Gallery. I think that it was Adam Ingram and his staff who made the presentation. It should be on record somewhere that when the first draft of Peace II was issued, there was not even a mention of victims in it.
I remember several of us raising our hands to arrest the proceedings and query what the peace and reconciliation programme was all about. There seemed to be an incredible steer towards those projects that focused on the economic needs of Northern Ireland. I also stated that it would be difficult to stamp a dove of peace on Peace II, because there was not nearly enough work being done on reconciliation and getting communities together. I am very glad to see that there has been a turnaround and that as a result of consultation and pressure the original draft has become a source of measures which we can welcome in today’s motion.
However, I want us to go further than that. I would also like to welcome specific measures for integrated education, for greater cross-border co-operation and for more cross-community work. Peace II needs to achieve these goals also and we should bring these issues to the Floor of the House.
There is no doubt that we welcome the specific measures for victims included in the European Peace II programme. We thank the European Union for providing us with the finance to enable us to do this. Once the European moneys run out, let us hope that the Government will undertake to continue support measures for the victims of the troubles by mainstreaming this funding. Let us not simply clap ourselves on the back in congratulations for our good works. We are not doing enough. Much more needs to be done on a long-term basis.

Mr Alban Maginness: As I listen to this debate I have a sense of déjà vu. The old arguments much beloved of the DUP about "innocent" and "real" victims are being remoulded and recycled. I had hoped that the DUP might strike a more positive note today.

Mr Edwin Poots: Does the Member consider Slobadan Milosevic to be a victim?

Mr Alban Maginness: I am not sure that that is relevant to the debate.
Allow me to develop my argument a little. I respect Mr Berry because he has a genuine interest in the concerns and needs of victims. However, I am disappointed by the rather begrudging, carping attitude that he brought to the debate today. Instead of welcoming this motion with enthusiasm, he criticised it and then indulged in the old argument about innocent victims, real victims and prisoners et cetera. Ex-prisoners help to re-establish themselves as citizens. I am not afraid to assert that publicly, because it is important that we assist these people.
That is a separate argument, and ex-prisoners have separate needs. A humane and caring society is one that says to ex-prisoners "You have offended. You paid a price. We will now help you to rehabilitate yourselves." This applies to people who were convicted of offences arising out of the troubles — scheduled offences — as much as to those who were convicted of "ordinary" crimes.
The prisoners’ argument is completely separate from the victims’ argument. Let us consider the centrality of victims. The Good Friday Agreement, which the DUP opposes and seeks to overturn, addresses the needs and suffering of victims. A section devoted to victims of violence says
"The participants believe that it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation."
That is an important statement.
Today, the Executive are addressing the needs of victims of the troubles. That is an important step which everyone in the House should welcome enthusiastically. Peace II gives us an opportunity to target specifically the needs of victims. David Ervine spoke very eloquently about the needs of victims and pointed out that it is not only victims’ groups that we need to help but also individual victims, especially those who are hidden away and who feel so isolated and so marginalised that they may have given up hope. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will target victims individually and through organisations. The important strategy on which the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is working, on which all Members will be consulted, will establish a comprehensive programme for addressing the needs of victims.
Let me return to the Good Friday Agreement, which says that it is essential not only to "address" but also to "acknowledge" the suffering of victims.

Mr Paul Berry: Will the Member acknowledge that when he and his party, and many others, agreed to the Good Friday Agreement — if one can call it that — many victims were sorely annoyed and distressed when they saw that the perpetrators of violence were going to be released early on to the streets and the victims shunned? Basically, those victims were told "We care more for the prisoners than we care for the victims."

Mr Alban Maginness: Yes, some people were mightily distressed by the early release of prisoners, and some were not.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Does the Member agree that on 15 December 1994, when exploratory talks opened in this Building, 364 Loyalist and Republican life-sentence prisoners were already on the streets, long before the Good Friday Agreement was even talked about?

Mr Alban Maginness: I thank the Member for the intervention. In the normal course of events prisoners are released from prison when they have served their time. As Mr Hutchinson pointed out, many Loyalist and Republican prisoners had already been released. The number of reoffenders among that group, and, indeed, among the groups released after the Good Friday Agreement, is minimal, and it is important to take that into consideration.
People say "Hordes of prisoners have been released. This is terrible." Is it so terrible? Prisoners have contributed to and secured the peace in our society. They may have done terrible things in the past, but they have paid for those things. The contribution of prisoners should not be underestimated — though it should not be overestimated either.
The Good Friday Agreement talks about victims — it makes them a central part of the agreement. We — especially members of the DUP, who are so opposed to the Good Friday Agreement — should say that it has produced a focus on victims. If we were truthful, that is what we would say. The Good Friday Agreement has acted as a stimulus for focusing on the needs of victims, and it is very important for Members to acknowledge that.
The Good Friday Agreement talks about the acknowledgement of victims. Today we are talking about addressing the needs of victims. The strategy has to address not only the needs of victims but also has to acknowledge victims in some way. I do not know how we will do that. Many ways have been suggested, but there is no overall scheme in which acknowledgement can fully take place. The strategy that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister produces should contain a major element acknowledging the role of victims and their suffering. It should acknowledge their pain both individually and collectively. That is an important element and should be included.
The SDLP takes acknowledgement seriously, and we have produced our own ideas about it. One of these ideas, which would be helpful in acknowledging the suffering and pain of victims collectively and individually, is the establishment of a video archive. This would be publicly funded, and victims of the troubles could go to it and relate their stories on video or audio. The tapes will be stored as an historic record, which the public will have access to. Similar schemes have been set up in other places such as Israel and Washington.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Member for giving way and for putting an interesting idea to the House. Is he proposing, in his definition of victims, that people who have been injured by terrorist activity should have to share a place in that scheme with people who were terrorists and were perhaps injured by members of the security forces who were defending law and order? Does he understand that some victims might feel reluctant to be seen as part of that definition?

Mr Alban Maginness: I understand your position and the deeply held views of people who are upset about the equation that you have just suggested.

Mr Speaker: The debate is to be conducted through the Chair, not by addressing Members directly.

Mr Alban Maginness: I apologise, Mr Speaker.
The definition of victim that Mr Paisley Jnr suggested is far too restrictive. Eileen Bell is a leading expert on victims because she did so much work over the years in that area before the issue of victims became "fashionable". She has suggested that the definition of victim should not be restrictive — it should be much wider.
The SDLP believes that as well. If people believe that they have been victimised by the troubles, that should be sufficient to define them as victims. It should be self-defining, because when people are excluded all sorts of problems are created. However, I do understand the sensitivities that people have about the definition of victims and the sharing, as it were, of victimhood with people whom they do not agree with politically or who they believe to have been the cause of violence or hurt in society.
It is essential that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister co-operate fully with the Northern Ireland Office and with Minister Ingram in particular. It is vital to have co-operation between the Executive and the Northern Ireland Office. Mr Ingram has been very helpful and enthusiastic in addressing victims’ issues. A co-operative approach is central to addressing the gamut of victims’ needs. I am sure that that will come about, and I urge that it does.

Mrs Iris Robinson: There is a difference between those who carried out terrorist atrocities and those who suffered at the hands of those same terrorists. To say that the prisoners have paid their price to society is to add insult to injury.
Some terrorists served only months of life sentences because of the deal agreed under the Belfast Agreement. Many ex-prisoners are involved in drugs, protection rackets and other antisocial activities. They have created a mafia-type society that is causing severe hardship across the Province. I ask Mr Maginness to bear that in mind.
Throughout the so-called peace process, one group of people has come to symbolise all that is wrong with current political developments — the victims of the troubles; and by "victims" I mean those who have suffered as a result of terrorist violence. They are the real victims as opposed to those who are busily trying to claim a place in that honourable group.
The evident disparity between the way in which ex-prisoners and victims are treated is obscene. The catalogue of financial handouts to ex-prisoner groups is not only offensive but smacks of a pay-off. Almost £7 million have been given to ex-prisoners to date. That is, of course, only a minimum figure — a vast sum has been given to them through other mechanisms. Whatever figure is taken, it should be compared to what the real victims have received, which, in my opinion, is a bare fraction of what has been given to ex-prisoners.
Why have real victims been so overlooked? Is it because they are an in-your-face reminder of the barbarity and brutality of the deeds of wicked people, some of whom now pose as peacemakers?
Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister explain why we now have a cunning redefinition of who the real victims are? It has long been a tactic of Republicans to portray their lives as ones of unrelieved blackness and "victimhood". That has worked well for them until now, so why would they want to cease such a profitable occupation, especially when there is money in it for them? That is why it is essential to recognise the difference between those who support terrorism and those who have borne the brunt of it.
It has been mainly the Protestant community that has suffered so much, often without murmuring or complaining. Republicans, however, although they have been at the forefront of the cause of the suffering, have gone around the world whingeing and begging as though they were the victims. Our community, in contrast, has picked itself up and plodded on, and we have lost out as a result. We find that the lion’s share goes to the terrorists and thugs at every turn.
We are now witnessing the unacceptable merging of real victims with those who caused the trouble in the first place. The real victims, once again, are being treated on a par with those who caused the pain and hurt. To make matters worse, legitimate victims’ groups are unable to employ the number of staff required to provide the full range of services for those who need them. They are unable to meet in the sort of premises that terrorists now enjoy outside prison. I find that obscene.
To add insult to injury, victims with young children have had to endure the humiliation of being unable to provide for their growing families, as they watch the perpetrators of their anguish being lauded and hailed at every turn. Some of those people now have the audacity to sit in the Chamber with an arsenal of weapons at their disposal.
One of the major problems that I have encountered is the prejudice shown by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust (NIVT) towards organisations on the Protestant side, on the grounds that they are too political. It does not have that attitude towards ex-prisoner groups. The director of the NIVT said
"politically motivated ex-prisoners of war are at the forefront and actively continuing their struggle with their clear commitments to community development."
In March last year the NIVT froze funding for Families Acting for Innocent Relatives (FAIR). Again, in September, it reduced the funding, which meant that FAIR was no longer able to retain all of the staff that it had employed to help victims. In comparison —[Interruption]

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 17(7) because I am concerned that several Members have mentioned organisations that have acted as intermediary funding bodies. However, they have not mentioned others who fund prisoners’ organisations and rehabilitation. Under Standing Order 17(7), you could rule to prevent that. NIVT has done excellent work to tackle poverty and that has gone unrecognised in the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: Standing Order 17(7) gives the Speaker an opportunity to draw attention to persistent irrelevance or tedious repetition.
I am generous to many Members with regard to the length and repetitiveness of their speeches. However, it may be a relief to the House that not all Members are mentioning all organisations — otherwise we would never get through the debate.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I do not have time to go down the list of relevant funding bodies, but I take the point that my Colleague made.
In comparison to the funding for FAIR, Relatives for Justice, which is far more political than FAIR, received £99,000. That is not a sign of even-handedness or of a commitment to helping victims, especially Protestant victims.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Iris Robinson: No. I am just finishing.
I hope that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will reassure the House that the real victims of terrorism will receive money separately from ex-prisoners’ groups and remove the current disparity in funding.
11.45am

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will briefly mention some of the comments made by Members about ex-prisoners. I must state clearly that ex-prisoners are making, and have made, a valuable contribution to the healing and confidence building that is characteristic in a society that is emerging from conflict. I also want to draw attention to the DUP, those innocent victims, politicians who, from what we hear in the Chamber, never did anything wrong. Graveyards are full of the victims of Ulster resistance, the killing machine that the DUP played a big part in.
No money can compensate those who lost a family member in the conflict of the past 30 years. It is an unmeasurable grief that time does not heal. Time merely adjusts the quality of life for the living so that they perform the functions of everyday living in the knowledge that part of their lives has closed down — a burden that never goes away. No one should expect relatives who are carrying such a cross of grief also to carry the additional pressure of financial hardship created by the loss or injury of a family member. Monetary aid that can ease that pressure should be sought out and delivered. That delivery must acknowledge equality of treatment; it should acknowledge transparency; and it should be based on the principle of "to each according to his needs".
The welcome addition of EU money should not become the subject of a squabbling match between a plethora of administrative groups. Indeed the situation involving the Victims Liaison Unit, the Victims Unit, the trauma advisory services and the various intermediate funding bodies — not to mention the Secretary of State — is only causing confusion to the victims who are looking on and wondering what it has to do with them. I am not demeaning the role of the groups that I have mentioned in trying to address the needs of victims, but the administrative quagmire is causing total confusion. What proportion of the EU funding will be soaked up by the bureaucratic bodies on administration? Why do we need all these people dipping their fingers into the till of money that should be used solely to address the needs of those who have suffered as a result of the conflict? I need an assurance — and so do all the relatives’ groups and individuals — that an administrative levy will not be imposed on the distribution of the money.
In addition to the legitimate concerns of relatives of victims and survivors of the conflict who have the right to be adequately compensated, they collectively have the right to truth, justice, acknowledgement and recognition. The Bloomfield Report is used as the definitive means by which the Northern Ireland Office measures victimhood. Commentators and numerous politicians have constantly articulated the hurt of those affected by the conflict, but that expression, is rarely extended to the forgotten victims and survivors of state and state-sponsored violence. Such victims — well over 400 men, women and children — were accorded one paragraph in the lengthy Bloomfield Report. Is it any wonder that there is in effect — and some Members have mentioned this today — what amounts to a pecking order of victims? We saw it recently when the Secretary of State announced £11 million for the relatives of RUC victims. I am not saying they do not deserve that, but compare it with the £200,000 that was announced for all of the other victims’ groups and individuals.
That disparity between allocations reinforces the perception that the state operates a league table of victims, not only in funding, but also in truth, justice and recognition.
Marginalising the forgotten victims of state violence is a tactic in the propaganda war. It is used successfully by politicians to demonise and exclude those who do not come within the definition "security forces". They label the relatives of some of those killed as innocent and, by implication, others as guilty. The suggestion is that some were right and some were wrong. That makes nonsense of the historic compromise that is the Good Friday Agreement and is an attempt to criminalise everyone. There are double standards on the part of the British Government, and anyone following the issue of victims in the media could be forgiven for thinking that there were only two parties to the conflict. Many parties were directly and indirectly involved in the conflict, and we are all responsible for victims.
We have a duty to care for all who have suffered and for those who live with grief, injury, pain and traumatic stress. We have the opportunity, with this small tranche of money, to decide that it will be given to all surviving victims and their families, irrespective of political or religious differences. The present administrative arrangements are divisive and bureaucratic and will only postpone the opportunity for healing, which is the main purpose of the money. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the additional money. It is coming to Northern Ireland as a result of the efforts of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, of our three MEPs and, to some extent, of Members of the Assembly who went to Brussels to lobby for it in 1998. I also welcome the inclusion of a specific measure for victims in the Peace II programme. Most of the funding should go towards the innocent victims of terrorism and paramilitarism.
In determining how to treat victims, we should consider how their needs were addressed in the past. Most innocent victims are not highly organised or politicised. I urge Ministers to be proactive in assisting with the establishment of a support structure for victims in all areas. I am thinking of organisations such as Wave, which is respected by all communities. As a starting point, the Minister should analyse each council area to see how much funding there has been for victims. I fear that some stark figures will come to light from such a study.
My experience of how victims were dealt with by Peace I is, in the main, limited to my own constituency. There are victims in all constituencies in Northern Ireland. In my constituency, there have been many innocent victims of violence. Many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Army, the Prison Service and their families have also been victims of terrorism. In addition to what has happened in the past, there are at least 80 organised gangs, many with paramilitary connections, whose activities continue to create victims. That fact has been highlighted by a recent report. People are being intimidated and business people blackmailed by those gangs. Those people too are victims, and their problems must be addressed.
Many of these gangs hide under a cloak of either Republicanism or Loyalism.
How many victims were assisted by Peace I funding in my own area? I recently received a report from Proteus, one of the Peace I bodies. The report advised that Proteus had assisted 1,331 victims of violence and 977 ex-prisoners. How much of that money was spent in Carrickfergus? Carrickfergus does not appear in the table of funding. No money was spent in Carrickfergus. A very low proportion was spent in Larne. The money is not being evenly distributed. Some areas need assistance in drawing down the funding to help victims of violence.
The Educational Guidance Service for Adults received £4·3 million in European Peace I funding, if my memory serves me correctly. In the entire constituency of East Antrim £26,000 was spent. These groups were putting money into victims’ groups and ex-prisoners’ groups, and a very low proportion was being spent in East Antrim.
I also urge that specific funding be set aside for the ongoing victims of intimidation. I am aware of several very genuine victims who are experiencing difficulties in re-establishing their lives. In the last year they have been forced out of their homes, yet the system does not appear to be able to assist them. I ask the Minister to be proactive for those who continue to suffer from intimidation by paramilitary groups.
How are we going to assist those who are being brutalised or shot by these self-appointed paramilitary godfathers? Some in this House continue to withhold their support from the police and continue to hold back from urging their community to join the police. Whether they like it or not, they have a degree of responsibility for victims of ongoing terrorist violence when they withhold their support from the police and withhold support for joining the police from their community.
Everyone must get behind the police. They must get behind the criminal justice system exclusively. The longer games are played, the more victims there will be. Others will use the withholding of support for the police to justify their breaches of human rights and the brutalisation of bodies. This Assembly and this society must decide whether they are going to move forward by respecting the rule of law and by relying solely on the criminal justice system.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the fact that money has been allocated to victims. I wish to speak specifically on where that money should go. The notion that the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland should receive the financial support of government, both at Westminster and in Brussels, is honourable. However, events of the past few years have shown us that this too has been lost amongst the political expediency and the social confusion that is the Belfast Agreement.
The gulf between Government efforts to promote and support the spokesmen of terror and their acknowledgement of and support for the victims of terror is truly reprehensible. IRA/Sinn Féin, which has the blood of thirty years of slaughter on its hands, is elevated to Government, and has millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money thrown at it. On the other hand, we have the families and individuals who must live the rest of their lives with the physical and emotional scars received at the hands of these thugs. The victims are having to organise and raise money for their own cause on their own.
12.00
The Government of this country have rejected and insulted the victims of terror and the memory of those who died to protect freedom and liberty in the scramble to meet the demands of IRA/Sinn Féin. Along with many others, I must applaud the bravery and courage of all those real victims and groups, such as the Long March, in refusing to lie down to the intimidation of IRA/Sinn Féin and the treachery of Westminster.
Our respect and admiration must be directed towards the victims who choose to stand on a public platform and share their experiences of how their lives have been destroyed at the hands of IRA/Sinn Féin. It is not easy to remain emotionally detached from the issue when you see people on television such as Michelle Williamson, who lost her parents in the Shankill bombing. When you hear her telling her story in person, and when you listen to the experiences of others whose lives have been wrecked by the troubles, the emotions and feelings stimulated can hardly be described or contained.
This is the reality of the past 30 years, and it exposes the play-acting and pantomime farce that is the Belfast Agreement through which murderers are given the power to dictate how we run our lives. They are able to do this as a direct result of taking innocent lives, yet they continue to plot the ethnic cleansing of all things Protestant and Unionist from our Province. There is no bigger insult to all the innocent victims. This is the present day reality. Innocent victims of fascist Republican terrorism are castigated, disregarded and ignored, simply because of their innocence and incapability of planting bombs in London — because they have no wish to do that. Therefore it is disgraceful to note the amounts of public money being allocated to those who, ironically, were responsible for our troubled history, while the real victims are ignored and pilloried.
One such group comprises the wives and widows of those who were injured or murdered defending democracy in this country while wearing the uniform of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment. One hundred and ninety-nine members made the ultimate sacrifice, while many hundreds more were injured or maimed. Families and former members require support and recognition and the Assembly has debated the issue before and has supported a motion. They, of all people, have had to endure untold hardship and pressure. It is deplorable that thus far they have gone unnoticed.
Money has been made available for RUC widows. I welcome that, although it is long overdue. However, a precedent has now been set, and it is essential that UDR widows and families get satisfaction on this matter as soon as is practicable. Many of us can recall members of the UDR and the RIR who are no longer here to look after their families. We can recall the young children and families left at home and the derisory amount of money offered to them as a result of their breadwinner being murdered by the IRA.

Mr Patrick Roche: Does the Member agree that it was Mr Martin McGuinness, as head of the northern command of the IRA, who was responsible for initiating as a major strategy the shooting of off-duty policemen and UDR men?

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank the Member for his intervention. That has been well illustrated in many books and papers.
I also want to focus on those people who are not the members of victims’ groups. A young man from east Belfast came to my advice centre a few months ago. He had witnessed the murder of his father and brother, and for the last 20 years has been unable to forget that nightmare. He has lived it every minute, every hour, every week, every year for 20 years. He has been unable to hold down a job and is unfortunately unable to have an ordinary stable relationship, although he is married with a very young family. He is one of the people who are outside the victims’ groups. Where do those such as this young man feature in this system? How will he be accommodated and where will financial assistance be made available to him to help him get over the trauma and distress that he has had over the last 20 years? Where will the help be for him and his wee family?
For over 30 years the gunmen of IRA/Sinn Féin have been employed in a campaign of terror throughout this country, leaving many thousands of families without husbands, wives, sons and daughters and leaving countless children orphans. The lives of these people have been irreversibly altered and they continue to suffer. However, over the past three decades they have been ignored, isolated and forgotten.
It is stomach-churning to listen to the arrogance of the Republican movement making public representations such as at the launch of the Human Rights Commission. One individual from that organisation asked what was going to be done to accommodate the poor unfortunate Republican prisoners who have been released on to the streets through the Belfast Agreement. That was his idea. Another individual wanted to know how the Irish language was going to be accommodated, while a third spoke about the deaths of rioters who had been shot by plastic bullets.
Let us put this into perspective. The voice of the true victims, the peace loving and the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland has again been relegated behind that of the terrorists and the gunmen. This is no surprise unfortunately, as those in the pro-democracy camp warned that this would happen before and ever since the signing of the agreement.
The landscape for the real victims of terror cannot be allowed to remain as it is. The policy, attitudes and financial assistance that will be available through Peace II must change, and the real victims must get their say. This new tranche of funding must be available to the victims of terrorism and put the focus on the families who today are living and continually reliving their experiences. They need our help.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Although my party welcomes any proposal to recognise the loss to the families of the innocent victims of terrorism, it is important that we put this matter into perspective. The problem was brought home to me very starkly when a lady representing one of the victims’ groups spoke at the front of Castle Buildings.
On that occasion that group came up to point out to the British Government — Mr Tony Blair and the Secretary of State — that while they were inside negotiating with terrorists on the difficulties with the Belfast Agreement, the victims had been largely forgotten. Members of that group brought that home in a very graphic way with large posters and large display boards showing the thousands of innocent victims throughout Northern Ireland who had suffered as a result of the vicious and violent terrorist campaign over the last 30 years.
However, this lady had something to say about victims that the House would do well to remember. She said that for many years people such as herself, her friends and her neighbours, along the border counties in particular, had been suffering quietly and had borne their grief with pride and dignity. They were proud of the fact that sons, daughters and, in her case, husband had been prepared to sacrifice their lives — and their families had suffered as a result — because they were standing for democracy, law and order and justice.
This lady showed clearly that her husband had not been being discriminatory when he put his uniform on to go out and defend the community, because he protected the entire community — Catholics and Protestants, Nationalists and Unionists. We must never forget these people. The lady accurately reflected the view of many victims, particularly those whose families had suffered as a result of their commitment to providing law and order to this community.
She then witnessed the corruption of the democratic process and the fact that the RUC was to be dishonoured and disarmed at a time when the terrorists were being elevated. People who had been on the run, who were on wanted lists and who had been sought and pursued, as was right, by the security forces were then seen walking into negotiations to bring into being the Belfast Agreement. They were being fêted across the world in Washington and further afield, meeting world leaders and being treated as statesmen.
That spectacle activated those people to moving from bearing their pain with pride and dignity to a position in which they felt that, if nothing else, at least their families might get some recompense for the pain and suffering that they had borne.
I was keen to hear some of the remarks made today, because they reinforce the point that I am about to make. The formal signing and sealing of the Belfast Agreement led to the pollution of the democratic process and the destruction of the RUC. The people of Northern Ireland must continue to remember that fact.

Mr Alban Maginness: Will the Member give way?

Mr Cedric Wilson: I am sorry, but I will not give way.
In the months ahead, the Belfast Agreement will place the representatives and frontmen of terror in the governing body of the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. They will be on the boards, managing and controlling the new service in their respective areas. Imagine the affront that will be caused to many, particularly those in the border counties. They will know that those who control the Police Service in their areas are the very people, organisations and those linked to organisations that put their loved ones in an early grave — those who were responsible for over 10,000 maimings, mutilations and murders throughout the Province.
Under this scheme we could witness the spectacle — if the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the entry criteria for the new Police Service is correct — of people in border counties seeing those who, they know, murdered their loved ones wearing the uniform of the new Police Service. How would you feel if your father, mother, brother or sister was murdered by someone who was never brought to book for it? Do not dismiss this as notional or fanciful. The reality is that many people have never been brought to justice in Northern Ireland, particularly in CountyArmagh. There were several killings in that murder triangle over a short period, and only a small proportion of the perpetrators were brought to justice.
I move on — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I caution the Member that he has moved well away from the issue of victims and money for victims, which is the subject of the motion, and on to related but separate matters.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Insult has been added to injury in today’s debate by the fact that those who front and are "inextricably linked to terrorist organisations" — an expression used by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State — as represented here by Sinn Féin and the PUP, have the effrontery to get up — [Interruption]

Mr David Ervine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Cedric Wilson: No.
They have the effrontery to talk about what they can do for the victims. Despite their high-sounding words and their homilies to Members about the need to reach out and look forward, they are people who prepared to go into a pub and plant a bomb, with no better or greater excuse than the presence there of innocent Catholics or Protestants. In some way they consider those people to be the enemy.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member and his Colleague need to be careful about the direct accusations against other Members that they make in the Chamber. They may be covered legally in some circumstances against action, but they are not necessarily covered by parliamentary procedure in making direct accusations against Members when there have been no convictions on the basis of the actions that they describe. I simply caution the Member and refer to the comment made by a Colleague of his.

Mr Patrick Roche: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take the point of order from MrRoche and then the one from MrPoots.

Mr Patrick Roche: I thank you for your advice, MrSpeaker, but I would not like to think that procedure could be used in any way to silence debate in the Assembly. If you want me to, I will give you numerous references from respected and recognised authorities on the IRA to back up any statement that I ever make about the IRA.

Mr Speaker: Order. My response to the Member is that order in this place is the same as in other places.
When accusations are made about a Member, particularly when they are made without notice and in the absence of the Member, conventions of parliamentary procedure and courtesy are being breached. That matter is clear. The Member ought to read some of the parliamentary procedural documents that he is so fond of referring to. The issue that he raises about other evidence is not relevant.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Outside this Chamber, an organisation cannot be defamed, but individuals in the organisation can. Mr Wilson mentioned organisations — not Members in the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: The Member should read Hansard tomorrow. In fact, Mr Wilson went much further than mentioning only organisations. He referred to Members in the Chamber, and he referred to Members who had spoken. It was clear what was being referred to. That is why I cautioned the Member. I am not asking him to withdraw his comments at this point, but I have cautioned him.

Mr Francie Molloy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be worthwhile to read Hansard tomorrow because the previous Member did mention a member of my party by name, and we will be looking at that. Will you make a ruling on that?

Mr Speaker: I have already advised the House that I will be studying the matter. The fact that I have raised the matter myself shows that I am doing my best to pay attention both to procedures and to what Members say.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker — or perhaps a point of clarification. Having been alluded to, I believe, by the Member, do I have a right of reply?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not be losing any sleep over any determination about what I have said today. I stand by every word.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member may not lose sleep, but he may for a while lose the right to be in his seat. Please continue.

Mr Cedric Wilson: That could also be borne.
People may think that my comments are harsh about the organisations that I have mentioned, but one has only got to put this matter into perspective. The organisations that I mentioned — Sinn Féin/IRA, and the terrorists represented in the Chamber by the PUP — are, at this moment sitting on huge piles of illegal weaponry. They refuse to hand those weapons in — weapons that are still being used almost daily for acts of terrorism and criminality and which we are told that they may need in the future. That is the sole purpose for those people having them. One should not believe that the leopards in those organisations have changed their spots or have had a great change of heart. That is the point on which I wish to end my comments. The reality is that the greatest—[Interruption]

Mr David Ervine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Cedric Wilson: No.
The real and greatest reward, tribute or memorial for the innocent victims and the families of those who have suffered throughout Northern Ireland would be to see democracy, law and order restored. It would be to see terrorism and its representatives removed from their positions as they pollute the democratic process by their very presence in this Chamber and in what is called the peace process. While these people pay tribute to the desire for peace and the need to move things forward, it is always at a price. In the case of Sinn Féin/IRA, it is further concessions.
Their reason for keeping the process moving was that those who were guilty of some of the most heinous crimes — such as those who were responsible for the murder of two policemen, as my Colleague said — would be given a clean slate. They have now been granted an amnesty. There is now a desire and a push by Sinn Féin for a wider amnesty for all those who have been involved in criminality and terror in the past 30 years.
Just outside this Chamber there is an epitaph to Mr Edgar Graham, who fell as a result of the terrorist campaign. The stone that marks his savage murder by the IRA reads
"Keep alive the light of justice".
That is a charge to the House today. It is exactly the opposite of what is happening in the process in Northern Ireland. I apologise to the people — particularly to the victims — who had to listen to terrorists talking about how they should deal with the victims of terror. It is an absolute affront and a disgrace.
It is the duty of those Members who believe in democracy, justice and law and order to rid ourselves of that process and put in its place something that will ensure that there are no victims in the future.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. On 29 January I had a unique opportunity. I joined in Brussels with councillors from all over Europe to form the Confederation of European Councillors. The first act of the confederation was carried out on Sunday 28 January — a cold but sunny winter’s day. The councillors joined together in the largest cemetery in Flanders field and assembled around the grave of the youngest soldier to be killed in the first world war. He was a lad of 14 years of age from County Wexford.
I was further honoured when I was asked to lead the act of remembrance. However, the greatest victims of shame and hypocrisy were those who had come from that same county and that same part of Ireland. They publicly wept because, for the first time, they recognised the shame and the hypocrisy of not having respected and honoured their own.
There have also been sad occasions in my constituency on which to report. We have had 97 people murdered. An equal or greater number from outside the constituency were also murdered in West Tyrone. I have also seen the victims of shame. The coffin of a decent, respected Roman Catholic RUC man was being carried down the streets of Omagh, but the Roman Catholic population shunned and boycotted that funeral of one of their own respected families. Therefore there is — perhaps for the first time — a recognition that there is a growing awareness in the Catholic community, and it did not happen on the day of the Omagh bomb when 29 people were killed.
What was different on that day was that the Roman Catholic population of Omagh felt the pain, sorrow and anguish that had been felt in the 97Protestant households of West Tyrone for 28years. A colleague, Cllr Joe Byrne, was the first person to come to my home. I was glad to see him, and I could recognise the genuine feeling.
In my constituency office I still attend to families who were given pitiful sums. Thirty years ago a family from Castlederg received £700 compensation. Those families have had to struggle to survive financially to bring up their families and to manage small businesses, farms or their work. I am grateful that the two junior Ministers came to the Committee of the Centre. They have given us their help and support and, so far, they have shown a willingness to listen.
I am rather tired and angered today when I hear the begrudging hypocrisy, particularly from AlbanMaginness. There is still a very serious problem. During a Committee evidence session I pointed out that some of the victims expected very little compensation, and one of the witnesses, in a rather condescending way, said that she had been delighted to receive a letter of thanks from the victims’ group which I initiated in west Tyrone for a day’s excursion that they had enjoyed to Belfast and the Crawfordsburn countryside. I chose not to point out that for three months one of those families had attended loved ones in the Royal Victoria Hospital, from where they also had two of their family cars stolen. They were not just victims in one way.
I also want to mention another raft of victims in the remote, rural area of west Tyrone where the Protestant community is sparse. The small Orange halls and church halls that were used as community halls for social activity cannot now be used because of terrorist threats. Those halls are now run down so that social fabric is also a victim.
At present, I am dealing with several specialised cases, and I am supporting a Manchester law firm that is dealing with people from my area who are termed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Those people received the best medical treatment that was available 20 to 25years ago. However, while they tried to carry on and run their businesses, stress and trauma continued to debilitate them. They have had to give up their jobs, and they have had financial and domestic crises.
These people are in desperation and need the best we can provide. West Tyrone Voice, a victims’ organisation, is going out of its way to take a small group of selected people to an island in Greece. It wants to bring some psychiatric counsellors with them to support these people for 10 to 12 days to help them to recover. Over a long period these people have had to endure deep-seated psychiatric traumas — and that was not first from managing financial affairs or a family — which have become embedded.
Dr Hazlett Lynch, whom I got to head that organisation because of his personal qualities and counselling abilities, is regarded as someone who gives more than adequate guidance and help to those 250 families. The fax that he sent me says it all:
"Please make sure this message does not get lost in the debate. What we need are the following:
The peace dividend to get down to the victims".
That is a heartfelt plea; the people feel there is a victims’ industry but that the genuine victims are not in receipt of the help that they need. This has not happened as yet.
"Core posts in the sector — this is absolutely essential if the excellent support work for victims is to continue and develop; these posts are for suitable victims to work with victims; work at present is growing exponentially; the need for our groups has long been established.
Guarantees that there will be no discrimination against our sector by funding bodies".
Unfortunately, this has been a genuinely held feeling in West Tyrone Voice.
"Guarantees that the groups with a proven track record of excellent work on the ground are given the resources they need to do work that no one else is doing; that groups that can demonstrate good management practice, good value for money, good care for members and staff, etc, are treated as priority groups in this sector."
I appeal directly to the junior Minister to take those groups of victims who feel an honest and genuine need seriously.

Mr Speaker: It was not clear that the Member was coming to the end of his speech, and I was going to give him the opportunity to continue when the debate resumes at two o’clock. However, that will not be necessary.
The sitting was suspended at 12.33 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Mr Edwin Poots: The House is fairly empty, but I am sure that it will fill up during my speech, not because of what I will say but because people will be returning from lunch.
I am glad that Mr Nesbitt has been here throughout the debate. I have criticised him on previous occasions, so it is only right that I should note his presence today. However, I must apologise, as I have to leave later this afternoon. I would like to stay for the whole debate but I have several appointments to keep.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Poots, you are not usually so gently spoken. I am having trouble hearing you.

Mr Edwin Poots: Do not worry, Mr Deputy Speaker; at certain points my voice will rise to the occasion.
There are three sources of funding for victims’ groups. It is important to bring those sources together in a common, identifiable body where victims can access funding. That has been a problem in the past. Different groups have administered different funds, but victims’ groups — and victims who do not belong to groups — have had trouble identifying where to go for support. Some have gone to the Victims Liaison Unit and some to the Victims Unit, but they have been sent from pillar to post on many occasions. It is important to address that issue properly.
I am also concerned that Peace II funding is being seen as an alternative to the money coming from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, instead of complementing it. I know that applications have been made for funding during the past year that have not been met — certainly not in full. On most occasions they have received less than half of what was originally applied for. I am worried that we are looking at Peace II as an alternative to Executive funding, as opposed to a means of complementing it.
I welcome the motion, but I do not think that the Assembly or the Executive should be patting itself on the back and saying that we have done a great job for the victims. We have only touched the edges. What we are doing will help, and it is good to be doing something, but we cannot say that we have done a great job and that victims should feel obliged to us.
Is the money truly additional, or will it pay for things that should have been provided by other Departments anyway? I noticed that wheelchairs were included in the list of funding arrangements announced recently. That is a good thing, but the truth is that the Health Service should have provided them. I also noticed that money is going to the Ulster Hospital for a survey on facial reconstruction. Again, should that money not have been provided through the Health Service? I want to raise this issue, as it may apply when the funding is distributed later. I want to ensure that it is truly additional and will not be spent on things that should have been provided by whichever Department it may fall into.
Who funds the victims and distributes the funding? The Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust has already been mentioned. In my experience, district partnerships also fall into this category with their handling of victims’ groups. The Lisburn district partnership had to be brought to a virtual standstill to get it to support funding for victims’ groups.
The money for prisoners groups could go through on the nod, but if one wanted money for victims, there was a serious row.
The same thing happened when Castlereagh district partnership did not give funding to the victims of the La Mon massacre. That was one of the main incidents of the troubles in that area, yet that district partnership, which is supposed to be representative of the community, was not prepared to give money to a project relating to the La Mon massacre — a project which had the support of the local council and the community in general. I have to say that NIVT has been more willing and appears to have been less thorough when giving funding to prisoners’ groups as opposed to victims’ groups. What sort of society gives more favourable treatment to murderers than to those who had their loved ones murdered?
Alban Maginness said that the Belfast Agreement addressed the needs of victims, but in my opinion, the Belfast Agreement has exacerbated their needs. Justice was stood on its head, because those who carried out murder, those who planted bombs and those who created destruction in the Province were released from jail without having served time commensurate with the crimes that they committed. As a result, many whose loved ones had been murdered during the troubles here — people who had sat with their heads down and got on with life — said "Hold on a minute. These people are getting early release from jail for crimes that they have perpetrated, and the Government are funding them to help them to get their lives back together. As the people who lost our loved ones and as the people who were injured during the troubles, we are not getting the same treatment." That is why, after the Belfast Agreement was signed, a raft of victims’ groups appeared throughout the Province. They saw that funding was available to help people to re-establish themselves. However the funding was not going to those who had suffered during the troubles; it was going to those who had been carrying out the murders, the bombings and the shootings.
In his speech, Alban Maginness did not accept that there is any difference in victims. It is a pity that he is not here; I would have welcomed an intervention from him. There is a very clear difference. Nobody in his right mind would argue that Saddam Hussein was just as much a victim as the Marsh Shiites or the Kurds. Nobody in his right mind would argue that Slobodan Milosevic — and I note that Mr Maginness did not answer the question when I raised it during his speech — was of the same standing as the Kosovar Albanians who had to tramp across mountains after having been put out of their homes. Nobody in his right mind would say that Adolf Hitler falls into the same category as the Jews who were taken to the gas chambers. Nobody in his right mind should be saying that the South Armagh IRA should be equated with the people who lost their lives in the Kingsmill massacre, or that Lenny Murphy should be equated with the innocent Roman Catholics in North Belfast who were murdered by the Shankill butchers. There is a difference between terrorists who got themselves injured or killed as a result of their activities and innocent civilians who lost their lives — people who were shot in the back, who were simply going about their business.
I remember hearing on the news one night that a 19-year-old girl had been shot in Fermanagh. Gillian Johnston was her name. Some time later it was heard on the news that that family got something like £850 as compensation for the loss of that young lassie’s life. It would not have mattered whether it was £850 or £850,000 as it would not have brought her back. The joy that the family had from that young girl could never be reinstated. When people see those who have carried out murder being released from jail, being taken by the hand, given money and preferential treatment in housing, and then look at what the victims got, they say "Hold on — something is wrong with this society." There is something wrong with a society that does not treat its victims fairly.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: During his speech, Mr Alban Maginness mentioned his proposal for a victims’ archive, and I am sure the Member agrees that that is an interesting proposal. I would like him, if possible, to say whether he agrees that a victims’ archive can be of use only if it is for victims. If those who created victims are included in the archive, it will be a damning insult to the victims themselves.
The point was well made that those who suffered in the Holocaust would not want to share their victimhood with the Nazis. I am sure that the Member would agree that victims in the Northern Ireland archive should not have to share their victimhood with those who made them victims.
Perhaps Mr Maginness would also address the issue of prisoners’ being out of jail. I think he missed the point in his speech — perhaps deliberately — that prisoners get out of jail anyway. Does he agree that people were not complaining about prisoners’ getting out of jail, but about the fact that their punishment was deliberately curtailed by the Belfast Agreement? They were therefore not being punished at all for the crimes of which they were convicted.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I fully agree with him. The man who carried out the Shankill bombing murdered 10 people – nine of them innocent — and I think he served six years and three months. The period was not commensurate with the crime committed, but he was released as a result of the Belfast Agreement.
Can you imagine having an archive that included the people who lost their lives in Loughgall? They were all armed and were out with murder in their hearts and minds. On the other hand, in Lurgan, two young lassies were shot at the shop in Kilwilkie together with the fellow who was walking across the street. Could Lenny Murphy be in the archive, with some of the people he murdered? I do not think that would be acceptable.

Mr Alban Maginness: The purpose of the video archive is for people to give their stories and to represent the pain and grief that they or their relatives have suffered as a result of the troubles. The people who died at Loughgall had families, and children were orphaned. Are those children and widows not victims of the troubles? Those who died were engaged in terrorist activities, but the result was that their families and children suffered. They are victims, and I suggest that they deserve a place in the archive.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Member for his intervention. I point out to him that during the Holocaust an archive was drawn up, and it would have been wholly inappropriate to put Adolf Hitler’s grandchildren into it — had he had any.
You cannot put the perpetrators of the crimes into the same category as the innocent who died during the troubles. That principle also applies to their families. That issue has to be clearly dealt with. Those who lost their lives during the troubles as a result of terrorism are not in the same category as those who went out to do an honest day’s work and lost their lives as a result of the illegal activities of others.
People have said that the prisoners’ issue and the victims’ issue are separate matters. In reality, the same bodies distribute the money to the prisoners and the victims. In essence, therefore, they are not separate issues. They are not separate issues when people see that more money, in the years after the Belfast Agreement was signed, has gone to prisoners’ groups than to victims’ groups. Those issues must be addressed.
We are never going to sort out the problem of the victims of the troubles. Money will never sort it out, because money cannot bring back a loved one. However, there are certain instances where money can help. I can think of young people who had to leave school at 16 or 17 to take a job because the father of the house had his life taken away. The mother had three or four other children to rear, so that young person needed to get a job to bring a few extra pounds into the house. They may now want to go into further education because they were denied that opportunity as a young person. That is the sort of issue that should be addressed.
Tremendous opportunities could be created for the victims of the troubles. I thank God that I am not one of the victims. A Republican organisation sought to make me a victim; it attempted to murder my father, but it did not succeed. I would like society — had I been a young person without a father — to have treated me in an honourable and respectful way. I would not want society to have placed me in the same category as someone whose father had gone out with an AK47 rifle. I want society to treat victims as people with genuine needs and concerns. The Assembly and the Executive of Northern Ireland have much to do and learn about this issue, and they need to treat people with the care, respect and dignity that they deserve.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Many Members have said since lunch that they wish to speak in the debate. Should each of them attempt to speak for 15 minutes, there would be no possibility of everyone taking part.

Mr Billy Armstrong: The word "victims" covers many aspects of the past tragic 30 years. It includes innocent people who were caught up in an incident through no fault or design of their own — people getting on with everyday life and minding their own business. It also includes a father, mother or other close relative, now in the twilight of their life, who suffered mental scarring from the loss of, or injury to, a dear one — a son, daughter, husband, wife or other relative. Some victims are civilians, or ex-members of the security services, who suffered permanent injury and/or mental scarring that no amount of compensation can repair.
The term also covers people who, because of their service, had their civilian career prospects damaged. Some were made redundant because employers did not want to take the risk of their business being attacked by terrorists. The farms of some victims had to be wound up or leased out because the father or son was incapacitated or worse. These definitions cover the victims of 30 years of shooting, bombing and other barbarities that the terrorists inflicted upon the community. These are the victims who should take priority in any measures to be formulated by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The word "victim" also covers many other aspects of our tragic past.
We could describe victims of circumstance as those who were injured during terrorist activity, who were held in protective custody, or who absented themselves — that is, went on the run — from their place of residence. Many of those in protective custody availed of educational opportunities provided by the Government, and their next of kin were able to avail of many financial benefits.
Victims of conscience are those who choose to hold to their beliefs and ideals contrary to the laws of the land. Again, many facilities were on offer to them, but they chose to pursue their agenda of civil disobedience.
These concepts of victimhood cannot belong to the category I first described. As a direct result of the activities of victims of circumstance and conscience, the innocents I spoke of are now victims.

Mr Gerry Kelly: Go raibh maith agat. People often want to rewrite the causes of conflict. It is certain that in the conflict of the past 30 years or more, there were victims on all sides. In a way, that is a very simple message. People are trying to work out some sort of hierarchy of victims and survivors. We are not just talking about people who are dead. Generally speaking, we are talking about people who have survived and who need help. At times we are talking about a generational issue, something which will not just spread to friends and relatives but to children and grandchildren.
The first principle is that all sides were involved in this and everybody is affected by it. We need to take a very basic view of what a victim or a survivor is. A victim is a victim is a victim. It does not really matter to the person whether his suffering is as a result of an action of the IRA, the RUC, the British Army, or Loyalists. The loss of a father or mother is devastating no matter who carried out the killing.
Contributors have mentioned Loughgall. Let me remind Members that not everyone involved in that was armed and that people were summarily executed. They were given the coup de grâce as they lay defenceless on the ground. Let us not get on our high horse about how people died. We could debate this for five or six hours, 10 days or four months. The fact is that if people are suffering and need help, then they should be given help, no matter what part of the community they come from.
I represent north Belfast, an area which has borne the brunt of the casualties over the past 30 years. People there, whether they are Nationalist, Republican, Unionist, Catholic or Protestant, deserve the same respect that Mr Poots is talking about. Respect should not be given in some hierarchical or sectarian way. In the end, we should avoid this categorisation that everybody seems to go for and deal with victims and survivors as they are — people who are suffering and need help. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the measure outlined by the junior Ministers. As an elected representative for Newry and Armagh, I have tried to give assistance to individuals and groups directly affected by the slaughter campaign organised and executed by the IRA, and Republicans generally, in my constituency. Having listened to their victims’ views, I know that money in itself will never ever compensate for the loss they have endured and the great suffering they have had to undergo. Our treatment of innocent victims should be a top priority for the Executive and the Assembly.
I am interested in the remarks of Mr Gerry Kelly, the Member for North Belfast, who has himself received many thousands of pounds in compensation for his perhaps questionable activities. He has certainly fared significantly better than many — [Interruption]

Mr Gerry Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since he is making accusations, will the Member say what those questionable activities are?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not really a point of order.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Mr Kelly has received amounts greater than any award made to any of my constituents who have lost husbands, wives, children and loved ones.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member agree that many victims will take it as a great insult that anyone should come to this House who, in the past, ensured not only that there were victims, but that the place where the victims were to get justice was destroyed by bomb attacks? For such a person to come and lecture people on victimhood sticks very thick in their throats.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I take the Member’s point.
Many innocent victims throughout Northern Ireland are only now beginning to unlock the grief that has been in their hearts and stored up in their homes and families over many years. We should remember that, in the light of the ongoing political and peace processes, recent years have been particularly painful. People have shown remarkable courage in bearing their pain and in the quiet and extremely dignified way in which they have gone about rebuilding their lives, without any assistance from Government. They have had to rely on members of their family, neighbours, friends and local communities such as churches to help them to readjust their lives after their great loss.
It has already been said today that there is a clear distinction between the innocent victims of terrorism and those who, in any way, went out and planned or premeditated murder, or who died as a result of their own illegal deeds. That is a very clear distinction in the minds of most decent people.
We should consider ring-fencing the Peace II money for the real victims of terrorism. We should establish a victims’ commission, in line with the views expressed by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in his report. I will be interested to hear in the winding-up speeches whether or not that can and will be taken on board by the Ministers. That could unlock much needed finance to victims’ groups that are being established or are up and running. Those groups are facing real staffing difficulties and difficulties in ensuring that they have the counsellors to give advice, support and help to the people who need it.
A clear programme of trained project officers should be set in place to help victims’ groups and individuals to apply for funding and help. It should cover everyone: those who lost loved ones, those who were caught up in explosions or events, and those whose lives have been considerably changed because of the trauma involved.

Mr Patrick Roche: Does the Member agree that if such a commission were set up, it would be very important that those involved in its work shared an understanding of victims, contrary to that displayed by Mr Maginness, whose comments were an offence to the sensibilities of decent people in Northern Ireland?

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his intervention, and I accept his point. The recent announcement of increased compensation payments for RUC widows is a welcome step, which is long overdue. A proper compensation scheme also needs to be introduced for other security force members — those of the UDR, the RIR and the regular Army — so that those who wore a uniform on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland will be properly recognised for the service they have given and the sacrifices they have made.
There is a clear disparity between the funds provided for groups representing ex-paramilitary prisoners and the funding for groups that represent innocent victims. Recently, I was alarmed to read a public statement by a senior director of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, who at the launch of a report, ‘The Cost of Imprisonment’, said
"politically motivated ex-POWs are at the forefront and actively continuing their struggle with their clear commitments to community development".
A statement of that nature needs to be clarified, and those in a public position who distribute grants —

Ms Jane Morrice: It is ironic that we should talk about people in public positions who disperse grants, given that this morning the Public Accounts Committee held a press conference on the distribution of European grants and their mishandling by Departments. The Irish Sport Horse Genetic Testing Unit Limited in Fermanagh received about £3 million. Why are such points on the handling of European money not brought to the Floor of this House?

Mr Donovan McClelland: We are straying from the subject of the debate.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Given Ms Morrice’s background and her undoubted connection with the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, I will not make any comparison with the case that she raised. The Public Accounts Committee is effectively dealing with the matter she raised, as it deals with other issues.
We are debating victims and European funding. The public servant’s public remarks are, in my view, wholly inappropriate in that they highlight, in some way, a supposed contribution to society by "prisoners of war". In reality, most decent people are of the opinion that had it not been for the actions of those selfsame POWs, much misery and suffering could have been avoided.
We hear many requests for public inquiries into various cases. However, many of the victims who regularly talk to me highlight the fact that neither their loved one nor his sacrifice is ever mentioned. We appear to be in danger of remembering set-piece murders or set-piece, large-scale slaughters. Meanwhile, those innumerable people who lost loved ones and family members are being quickly forgotten. That is a huge mistake. An argument could be made for setting up a truth commission to enable us to hear of the deeds that were done in the name of Irish Nationalism and Republicanism and the glorious tales of murders by bloodthirsty killers that were carried out in the name of Ireland.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Kennedy, may I ask you not to stray too far from the subject of the motion.

Mr Danny Kennedy: The Assembly could do worse than to allocate PeaceII money to a truth commission or to murder inquiries, especially into murders in my constituency.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Given that other countries can bring vicious criminals before war crimes tribunals, does the Member agree that money should be set aside to examine the activities of the leaders of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland to see whether charges could be brought against them?

Mr Donovan McClelland: We are straying from the motion.

Mr Danny Kennedy: If inquiries were established into some atrocities, they would seriously damage the reputation of people who present themselves on the world’s stage as peace players.
We welcome the announcement on European funding. We want the money to be spent wisely and properly. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must give an assurance that safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the money is spent in the interests of truly innocent victims. This opportunity must not be wasted. We can never compensate fully, but at least we can give recognition to the sacrifices that have been made in Northern Ireland over the past 30years.

Mr Patrick Roche: Mr Deputy Speaker, can you tell the House of your thinking when you came "near" to ruling that Members were straying from the motion when it was suggested that money should be set aside to bring people before an international tribunal? Why is that irrelevant to a consideration of how to address adequately the needs of the real victims of violence in Northern Ireland?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Roche, I am prepared to take up the time of the House responding to a ruling that I have actually made, but I will not waste time responding to a ruling that I might have made. There is a clear distinction, and I would like you to think about it.

Mr George Savage: I support the motion. Violence has always been an unpleasant part of Irish politics, and violence has victims. For too long, Northern Ireland has had victims. We must work with all our might to sustain the political institutions that have brought peace to our Province so that Northern Ireland has no more victims of violence.
Peace will be the best memorial to the victims — the only memorial worth having. In my view it is impossible to compensate the victims of violence with mere money; that would undervalue their suffering. Monetary compensation is one small way in which we as a society can say to the victims that we understand what they have gone through and what they have suffered. It is one of the few ways in which we can register our feelings for the victims of violence, their dependants and their loved ones. We should offer such compensation humbly, recognising that it is inadequate and, at best, a poor way in which we can attempt to identify with their suffering. The cost of life has always been too great. No amount of money will ever be enough. Therefore I urge generosity in any compensation for victims of violence — nothing less will suffice.
I have listened to many speeches today and, unfortunately, at the end of a debate, there is much repetition. I urge Members to look seriously at the motion. We do not wish for victims of violence. We want to be able to put that behind us, but at the same time we want to let them know that we appreciate what they and their families have gone through.
Many people in this country have thrived because of the conflict — they have that on their consciences. What brings it home is when the door closes at night and you see the empty chair.
I was not intending to speak today, but I felt I had to say something. I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for 13years, and never did I see its members step out of line. I had many good friends in the force. One incident that really had an impact on me was when, one morning, my brother left to go to work and a bullet stopped the wireless in his car at 7.50am. That was one of the longest days of my life. However, he was lucky as he survived the attack; many people were not as fortunate as he was.
About fouryears ago, my son was beaten up in Banbridge, which is in my constituency. It was not because of anything that he was doing — perhaps it was because I was involved in politics and it was a way of getting at me. I do not want to bring emotion into the debate; rather, I thought that I could play my part — and that is why I stood for the Assembly — to try to eliminate such incidents. I know what we as a family went through and what my brother’s family went through. People only understand when they are close to it. I hope that any compensation for victims is spent wisely and that those victims will never be forgotten.

Dr Ian Adamson: This has generally been a good debate in which most points have been covered. It would be remiss of us not to mention prominent individuals who have given their time, effort and money to support victims and to match Government funding. I am thinking of PeterLavery, the lottery millionaire, who has not only matched Government funding but has given a large part of his personal fortune towards the support of victims, particularly the children of the troubles. I know that everyone in the House would like to thank him for that.
It would also be remiss of us not to mention the Lavery family and others such as the prominent journalist Jim McDowell and the community activist in east Belfast Mr Sammy Douglas. I know that these individuals have provided a great deal of time and effort as well as moneys to help to support the victims of the troubles.

Mr Derek Hussey: I regret that, owing to business in my constituency, I meet victims — not on this issue but on the difficulties that they face in other circumstances. I believe that one of the junior Ministers is well aware of the difficulties that victims face.
It was the murder of a very close friend of mine that brought me into politics. The area that I live in has suffered throughout the troubles. As a teacher, I have vivid memories of following the coffins of parents of the schoolchildren that I was teaching and the coffins of those that I had taught. These people had entered society, taken up a regular job in order to give something back to society and had also taken the time to serve their community through part-time membership of the security forces. As time went on I realised that there had to be another way. Like my Colleague Mr Savage I decided that coming to the Assembly and adopting that approach was a way forward. However, I also believed — and still believe — that it would be totally incongruous and outrageous for a body such as this Assembly to forget what those people have suffered.
Recently, groups representing the victims of paramilitary terrorism have begun to organise themselves. These groups have to be recognised, and I appeal to the junior Ministers to tell us how they intend to allow those groups to get onto the same footing as other long-established groups. The new groups feel that it is taking a long time to gain the same recognition and funding as the groups who represent other types of victims. It is time for the peace dividend to filter down to the victims of paramilitary terrorism.
These groups are still in their fledgling stages; they need their core workers. Their work is growing exponentially. The Ministers must be increasingly aware of this, for these groups are beginning to exhort them to give proper recognition to the people that they represent. They are establishing a growing reputation in their field, and this must be recognised. I hope that when the Ministers reply they will tell us how such groups are being recognised. I await their replies with interest, and I trust that the Assembly will never forget those who have suffered in such dastardly ways in the troubles that our community has gone through.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: This is, as many people have said, a very sensitive issue. I have witnessed at very close quarters the immediate and sudden death of someone during the troubles. However, that pales into insignificance in other respects. I have not been a victim during the troubles, nor has a close relative of mine been a victim. Therefore I speak with a genuine sense of inadequacy.
I cannot for one moment comprehend the feelings of those who have lost a father, mother, or dare I say even more so, a son or daughter. You expect the next generation to outlive you; not to die before you. That must be very harrowing. I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate in a very serious way, by and large.
Mr Kennedy said that we can never compensate victims, but we can, at least, recognise what they are going through. Money is no compensation. In recognising that, we also acknowledge the significant monetary contribution that is now available to help victims in some small way. For the first time there will be a specific amount of money available solely for victims. In that respect, Peace II differs from Peace I. Victims will not be in competition with others, such as community groups that wish to utilise European money. The specific money for victims is to be welcomed.
Although the use of the money is yet to be fully determined, it will provide a source of practical assistance to victims. It will certainly be used in training and in re-employment. Above all, it will be used in giving practical assistance to victims.
We thank the European Union and the MEPs who contributed towards gaining this funding. We thank them for the serious contribution, made through Peace II, to the provision of funding. In the same breath, I must mention the Executive and this Administration. We are taking this matter seriously and are endeavouring to develop a strategy for victims and to identify their needs.
We will be undertaking widespread consultation. I ask each Member, especially those who feel that their communities have not been fully represented, to facilitate that consultation and encourage people to respond to it. People should make known to us what they want put in place when this money is spent. That is a genuine request from Mr Haughey and myself.
Mr Boyd and Mrs Iris Robinson mentioned the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. There will be an intermediate funding body appointed to handle grant application, processing and the award aspects of Peace II. It is anticipated that that body will be appointed within two to three months through open competition.
I hasten to add that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be very closely involved in determining the mechanisms and in monitoring all stages of how the money is used, once the new intermediate funding body has been appointed.
People might think that I am offloading accountability onto someone else. However, this Administration — the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in particular —has had no input into the previous elements of funding and the core funding scheme. We will now have responsibility for the new intermediate funding body and for our funding for it. Peace II accounts for about £7 million, of which £1·6 million will come from the Executive. That should answer Mr Poots’s question about complementarity. Therefore funding from the Executive and Europe will be combined.
Responsibility for the management of victims’ funding will fall to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and clear criteria will be agreed with the Department of Finance and Personnel. I am conscious of the point that Mrs Nelis made about bureaucracy; I shall not allow bureaucracy to be the tail that wags the dog. We must ensure that the money is fed down to those in need — the victims.
Mr Beggs asked about the geographical distribution of funding. Our purpose will be to meet the needs of all victims, regardless of where they are, and to give equal opportunities to all. Members who feel that their area has not been well represented should help us to ensure that those areas contribute to the development of the strategy. Mr Beggs also spoke about ongoing acts of violence. We will recognise the needs of victims of such acts; they must be included.
Mr Berry raised the sensitive issue of the treatment of widows of members of the RUC. They will receive practical help under Peace II. All victims and their families will be eligible, and that includes, without doubt, the security forces. Mr Watson raised the sensitive issue of compensation. I do not wish to disown the matter, but I must state clearly that compensation is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office. Nevertheless, Mr Haughey and I will press the issue of compensation at the regular meetings that we have with Mr Ingram and the NIO.
Mr Berry asked about the certainty of funding for the future. That is important. It is not enough to have money now; we must have certainty about the availability of funding in the future. I welcome the announcement that there will be £500,000 per year for the next three years from the Executive’s social inclusion fund.
Mr Ervine and Mr Alban Maginness raised the issue of practical assistance to individuals. That has been a recurring theme, and, at the outset, I said that it was individuals who needed the assistance. This matter is connected to the issue of bureaucracy and the mechanisms that the intermediate funding body will operate under, with the agreement of the Department of Finance and Personnel. In order for us to give practical assistance, individuals must tell me what is needed. We will conduct research to meet as many victims as possible to get their views about what they need. We will undertake that research shortly; Members’ help would be appreciated in that as well.
The subject of individual victims leads me to the needs of victims — something that was raised by Mr Beggs and Mr Shannon. We are consulting on that, but there are certain general comments that I can make at this stage.
One theme that came through this afternoon and this morning was that ex-prisoners’ associations are well organised and can utilise funding, whereas other groups are not. How can we give that assistance? I hope that we will be able to develop a strategy to help those who do not have the apparatus to make a claim or to apply for funding.
Core staff was mentioned; that is important as well. The core staff must be maintained. One sensitive element that came through — I keep using the word "sensitive", but all of what we are talking about is sensitive — was mentioned by Mr Shannon, Mrs Iris Robinson and Mr Berry, to name but three, and that is ex-prisoners’ groups and their involvement. Let me make it clear — the Peace II programme contains a measure specifically for victims; it is called Victims and Survivors of Violence. Ex-prisoners’ groups are not eligible for that. They may — to be up front about it — be eligible for support under other measures in the programme, but not under the victims aspect of the measure. I understand — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Minister has said that he will not give way.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I understand the strength of feeling in communities, no matter what side a person is on. Although I understand, as I said at the outset, I do not speak as one who has been directly affected by violence. My understanding is that of someone who has been able to stand back from events, so to speak. Those who have been affected articulate the hurt, and it is for us as Assembly Members to reflect that hurt, suffering and the needs of victims. However, our task — and it may not be accepted by all — is to give effect to the Belfast Agreement and to address the needs of all victims fairly, honestly and openly as described in that agreement. That is what I am charged with, and that is what this Administration is charged with.
There are many parties here, and if we are to move beyond conflict and truly reconcile — my party Colleague George Savage reflected on this accurately and pointedly a few minutes ago — we must take on board the needs of all.
One difficulty that I have in politics is meeting victims. A DUP Member said earlier that the victims of violence feel full of hurt and alienated, and Alban Maginness referred to another argument. I also hear the two arguments. Some people ask me how I can be in the Administration. Others say exactly what Mr Savage said: "You must continue in the Administration so that others do not suffer what we have suffered." It is for the latter reason that I stand here today, and that is why I mentioned what Mr Savage said in his concluding comments.
Alban Maginness mentioned a memorial or an archive. We are aware of that suggestion, and it is in keeping with the recommendations of the Bloomfield Report. It could be a demonstrable way of showing something on a permanent basis, but we must give it careful consideration.
We need to take on board the views of victims and their representatives when deciding what we should do. We must be conscious that the priority is to give practical help to support victims. Perhaps the money should not be spent on some form of archive. It is something that needs to be, and will be, thought through carefully.
Two types of commission were mentioned. That needs careful consideration. What role should a commissioner play in general? More specifically, what roles would a commissioner for victims or a truth commissioner play? Should the money be used for that? We have not reached a firm conclusion. We are debating the issue, and we will be consulting the Northern Ireland Office.
The truth commission is an equally delicate matter. There could be advantages and disadvantages to such a commission. There have been references to the many difficulties experienced by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. My Colleague Mr Haughey has been speaking to its vice-chairman, Alex Boraine, and we are taking on board his experiences. It is something that we are considering. We are treading very sensitively and, I hope, very sensibly.
The experiences of the victims will remain with them for many years to come. I hope that we will not have to witness new victims being created in the same way that they have been in the past. That is why I am here. That is why this Assembly and this Administration are here. That is why we — Mr Haughey and myself in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and others in this Assembly — are endeavouring to do our best for victims.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly welcomes the inclusion of a specific measure for victims in the European Peace II programme.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Minimum Wage

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I beg to move
That this Assembly considers the current minimum wage threshold to be too low and supports a minimum wage level of (at least) £5 per hour and calls for the youth exemption contained in the current legislation to be abolished so that the £5 per hour rate applies to all.
I want to point out a number of things about the legislation, even though it is a reserved matter. The legislation has been ineffective in tackling the problem of low pay and exploitation. Low pay is not an issue about people not doing the work; it is about exploitation.
There are three reasons why the legislation has not tackled the problem properly. First, the minimum wage has been set too low. It does not even keep pace with inflation. For many, it becomes the maximum, not the minimum wage, and we need to take that into consideration.
Secondly, there is no adequate enforcement. The unit that deals with enforcement is hidden away. There are very mild penalties. The unit is understaffed, and employers know that if they are caught the worst that will happen to them is that they will be made to pay the minimum wage.
These factors illustrate the fact there are few incentives to deal with the problem.
The third problem with the legislation is the inclusion of exemptions, the most obvious of which is age. We all know that for a long time a number of "high street" companies have been paying their staff a low wage. Some Members have sponsored Third-World issues. However, when considered in the round, it seems that some of the cases in Northern Ireland are just as bad. For example, certain companies pay 17-year-old staff members £1·70 an hour. That is a total disgrace, and we need to deal with it. Those Members who have supported such worthy causes elsewhere need to recognise that we need justice for people in the United Kingdom.
The Anti-Poverty Network’s statistics show that low pay affects 300,000 people in Northern Ireland. That is a damning statistic that we all need to take into account. The NSPCC claims that one in four families and one child in three live in poverty. These are also damning statistics for such a society as ours, and we need to look at this in the context of low pay.
Northern Ireland wage levels are 20% lower than those of our counterparts on the mainland, yet the cost of living has increased at a quicker rate. My Colleagues on the Unionist side of the House continually, and rightly, refer to the need for parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to look at the levels of wages needed to keep abreast of inflation and to ensure that people do not end up living in poverty.
Among the other factors that put Northern Ireland at a disadvantage, in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom or even with the rest of Europe, is the 140% increase in our fuel prices. These are matters that we have to deal with on a daily basis. Electricity prices here are 21% higher than in Scotland, 27% higher than in England and Wales and a massive 53% higher than those of our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. Those statistics highlight how important it is for employees here to earn a decent wage which enables them to keep their heads above water.
Our domestic electricity prices are the most expensive in Europe. The cost per unit in Northern Ireland is 9·43p. Electricity is cheapest in Finland, where it is 4·47p per unit. These factors need to considered when we, or employers, are deciding how much people should be paid. Statistics showing electricity prices and the earnings of those at the lower end of the pay scale are damning. In the financial year that ended in April 2000, Viridian made £70 million in profits, but it also announced that prices would rise again. Six weeks ago we had a heated debate on electricity prices.

Mr Fred Cobain: A heated debate?

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Yes, it was a heated debate. Funny comments are not very appropriate to this debate, especially when they come from the Chairman of the Social Development Committee, who knows about the problem of fuel poverty.
We should be linking all of those with low pay. Take the lack of investment in the transport infrastructure and the effect that has on such people. Most people here need cars to journey to and from work because of that. One example, which cripples most people, is the cost of car insurance in Northern Ireland compared with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is just another element.
We listen to and comment on Budgets and Programmes for Government. On Committees we talk about sustainable development in communities, job creation and urban and rural regeneration. Even if we achieve all of that, will it work when the Anti-Poverty Network is telling us that 300,000 people in Northern Ireland are affected by low pay? Surely we must do something about that and ensure that the Assembly deals with poverty here? We say that we want sustainable development, and yet 300,000 people are affected by low pay. We cannot even guarantee that people in work will receive a wage from their firms that will keep their families on a weekly basis, yet we are asking communities to produce sustainable development.
The Green and Orange Tories in the House will argue that if we increase the minimum wage to £5 we will lose jobs rather than create them. That brings me to the amendment from Dr Birnie and Mr Beggs. They are asking us to look at the impact on national and local employment and to consider possible alternative threshold levels. Why not look at the European threshold level, which is set at £7? Regarding the amendment, I am not asking for a change in legislation today — it is a reserved matter — but I am asking people to do a number of things. We need to look at what the Assembly can do today and tomorrow without having to change legislation. The legislation can be changed as we go along.
As I have already said, we have to take action to lessen the burden on the 300,000 people in Northern Ireland who are affected by low pay. The Assembly could do something, if it wanted to. Bringing the motion to the Floor has already started the process. That has allowed a discussion to take place, and when I am finished speaking I hope that a serious debate will ensue. I call on everybody in the Assembly, and those outside, to lobby our Westminster MPs to try to get the minimum wage changed to £5.
I also call on the Assembly to establish a policy whereby all departmental employees, direct or indirect, are paid at least £5 per hour. A precedent has already been set here with the Assembly Commission’s deciding to set the minimum wage at £5. Departments could follow suit. We should take the lead and talk about what we can do. In summing up, my Colleague, Dara O’Hagan, will provide a breakdown of the figures of people being paid under £5 per hour in each Department. Let us establish a policy whereby the Industrial Development Board (IDB) does not award Government grants to companies that will not pay £5 per hour. We could restructure Government-sponsored training programmes to ensure that they top up state benefits to a level of at least £5 per hour.
Many lessons have been learnt about community development and economic regeneration. One is that without an integrated approach, they will not work.
The other is that Government aid is being poured into different areas, but the issue is not being viewed in a holistic way. Now is the time to do that. We must look at how much money is being injected into Government programmes and at how much money the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is contributing. All these issues must be examined to see if resources can be better utilised. There is an opportunity to look at the New Deal and other schemes — which do not work in any case— to see how they can be restructured.
If the Assembly cannot implement my suggestions on the 300,000 people who are on low pay, it is telling society that it is not prepared to deal with such matters. This is one way of dealing with some aspects of poverty. I ask all Members to support the motion.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "low" and add
"and calls for an adequate research assessment of the national and local employment impact of possible alternative threshold levels."
The proposer of the motion referred to me and the co-sponsor of the amendment as "Orange Tories". I can only speak for myself: he is half-correct, but perhaps not the half that many people might expect.

Mr David Ervine: When the Member reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that neither Member was named as an Orange or Green Tory.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I do not deny that the proposers of the Sinn Féin/PUP motion have some worthy objectives, to the extent that Mr Hutchinson referred to the problem of non-enforcement — that is, the illegal non-payment of the current minimum wage. I doubt if anyone in the House would disagree with that. I hope that we all support enforcement of the law as it stands.
In this amendment we are not attacking the minimum wage in principle. We accept that it is in the law. However, the motion raises the crucial question of what the correct minimum wage should be.
There are many reasons to doubt the wisdom of pushing for an increase in the minimum hourly rate from its current level — which in October will rise to £4·10 - £5 without also giving adequate consideration to all the consequences of such a change. This could have an impact especially on the poor, for whom the proposers have a high regard. Furthermore, policy elsewhere in the United Kingdom would have to be considered because this is a non-transferred matter.
In an ideal world everyone’s wages could be raised at the stroke of a legislator’s pen. But — and therein lies the rub — you cannot legislate your way to prosperity. This can be achieved in the long run only by having a more competitive economy.
The proposers have not yet indicated that they have considered seriously the possible negative impact on employment that would result from raising the minimum wage by the extent they propose, and hence the implications for unemployment. Neither have they indicated that they accept that there are sound reasons for the so-called youth exemption, whereby there is a lower minimum wage rate for workers between the ages of 18 and 21. Workers in that age bracket generally have a lower level of productivity and are often still in training. They do not produce as much as fully trained adult workers. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, that companies should economise on their costs until these younger workers reach full or average productivity and are fully trained.
Remarkably, the proposers have ignored the stance of the Low Pay Commission, which was the body established by the Blair Government in 1997/1998 to decide precisely what is being debated today — the level of the minimum wage. The commission recently recommended that the UK minimum wage should be increased to £4·10 this October and to £4·20 thereafter. Indeed, my party, through its Westminster spokesmen, has already welcomed that.
Interestingly, the Low Pay Commission includes representatives from the Transport and General Workers Union, the Confederation of British Industry and a number of labour market economists. Therefore it would appear to be reasonable to follow the figures that they have arrived at rather than the figure of £5.
Northern Ireland starts from a position of a lower average level of wages and productivity than the rest of the UK — something that the proposer did not mention. This implies that any ill-considered increase in the minimum wage here could have even more job-destroying effects on competitiveness. Members are too well aware of the tenuous position of firms in sectors such as textiles, clothing, farming and tourism. We should not lay the final straw upon such firms and possibly break their backs.
International evidence, as provided by the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation in 1998, implies that as a country’s minimum wage rises as a percentage of the market wage rate then the rate of unemployment in that country also rises relative to other countries. For a long time, France has had a relatively high minimum wage for its youth and it has also had a much higher rate of unemployment among young people than either the UK or USA.

Mr David Ervine: Bearing that in mind, will the Member give some indication as to why Northern Ireland has had its lowest levels of unemployment for a long time, even though the minimum wage has been in existence and has been increased?

Dr Esmond Birnie: I was going to come to that point later.
In a sense, we have been fortunate that the introduction of the minimum wage in 1998 corresponded with a boom that was happening in the Northern Ireland labour market. Therefore, any negative effects on competitiveness were submerged by other changes.
However, the international evidence is clear, and I have some of it with me. If the minimum wage rate is set at too high a level for people under the age of 21 then it will destroy jobs. For example, the youth unemployment rate in France in the late 1990s was at the shocking level of almost 30%.
The House will destroy its credibility if it establishes a pattern of adopting what are simply economic wish lists. We might think that those are popular — and, of course, there are elections coming up shortly — but we will not be delivering what is in the real, best interests of the people. Almost every economic study has indicated that when a minimum wage is set at a relatively high level compared to the market rate it causes some increase in unemployment. Perhaps the 1998 UK minimum wage did not cause obvious unemployment because the level was considered carefully by the Low Pay Commission and its introduction — [Interruption]

Mr Danny Kennedy: Would the Member care to indicate what he personally thinks is an appropriate level for the minimum wage, given that he does not want to legislate for it?

Dr Esmond Birnie: My feeling is that a rate of £4.10, which will rise to £4.20 next year, as recommended by the Low Pay Commission, is not unreasonable because the commission represents industry and economic experts.
Studies have indicated that minimum wages are not necessarily the best way to tackle poverty. That is another crucial point that the proposer of the motion did not adequately address. Many poor people are not in employment, so raising the minimum age does nothing to help them. That point was recognised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Byers, in the statement that he made on the increase to the minimum wage on 5 March this year. Moreover, many low-wage workers belong to families that are not in the lowest income categories. That point was recognised by the Northern Ireland Economic Council in its 1998 report on the introduction of a minimum wage and its impact on the local economy. The level of the minimum wage is not, in any case, a transferred matter; responsibility still lies with Westminster. The proposer recognised that, but he failed to show why we should move beyond the levels established by the UK Low Pay Commission, which are now being adopted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I agree with the proposer about the need to deal with poverty, but he did not prove the case that raising the rate to £5 an hour at this stage was the best means to that end. The amendment does not rule out an increase to the minimum wage, but calls for careful consideration of the impact of any increase on unemployment figures and consideration of whether that would be the best way of tackling poverty generally.

Ms Jane Morrice: Because of the number of Members who want to speak in the time allocated by the Business Committee, I must ask that contributions be limited to five minutes.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Madam Deputy Speaker, your pronouncement cuts to pieces what I was going to say. Little can be said in five minutes.
I welcome this cross-party motion. It addresses the culture that exists in Northern Ireland of paying people at the lower end of the wage scale. That has, in turn, created a further dependency culture, as people seek benefits and other ways of augmenting their income.
I listened with interest to what the proposer of the amendment said, especially the statistics. The problem is not new to Northern Ireland, and I am glad to support the motion. At a conference a quarter of a century ago, in 1973, my local branch of the SDLP proposed a motion calling on the conference to support a demand for all workers in the North to receive a national minimum wage that would be reviewed annually. It has taken a long time for that demand to reach fulfilment, and I think that we are still falling short of what is required.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the Member give way?

Mr Eddie McGrady: I have only five minutes, so I am not going to give way.
I was glad that the Labour Party in Britain had caught up — albeit a quarter of a century later — in their manifesto for the 1997 general election.
The proposal in the motion is for a minimum of £5 an hour. People who work a 38-hour week — a full week’s work — are entitled to £190 a week for their labour, whoever they are or whatever their skills. No one should object to such a basic rate. Some may think that we are getting ahead of ourselves by proposing an increase of 10p or 30p an hour, but we should consider the statistics. Of all the European countries with a minimum wage — for example, Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Portugal — the United Kingdom is second last.
It contributes only 38% of average earnings. Some Members are fond of statistics so I am giving them some. The United Kingdom is second last in the list; Spain is the only country that is lower. We have all the statistics we need. The low pay units have been cogitating on the matter for decades. The purpose of the amendment is to nullify the motion and remove the £5 figure. There is no other purpose for it. Statistics are coming out of our ears. We know what is happening. The SDLP is interested in creating a greater degree of social justice, less deprivation and less dependency on handouts from the state or charities. Surely to God that is not only a political commitment but also a Christian commitment. The Assembly must endeavour to give equality to the people who are working hard, long hours at wages below the minimum wage.
Since the current legislation was introduced, between 1·25 million and 1·5 million people have benefited. That is how bad the situation was, and it can be improved. In Northern Ireland 50,000 people are going to have at least a measure of their regular income — earned by the sweat of their brow — delivered to them by the motion. It is a modest increase — about 10p per hour. That is not a big deal.
The SDLP is seeking to achieve a degree of justice and equality of treatment and to give some pride to people. They should receive a just reward for their labour.
The low pay unit concluded that a national minimum wage had not adversely affected the economy. That has been statistically proven by the Low Pay Commission. Therefore another few pence will not make much difference. The SDLP supports the motion.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I came to the House today with a mind —

Mr David Ervine: Does the Member come without a mind sometimes?

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I will treat that comment with the contempt that it deserves.
I came to the House with a mind to support the amendment. However, having listened to Mr Birnie, I will not be doing so. It is a disgrace that there are 300,000 people on the poverty line in Northern Ireland. A verse that is quoted so often — "The labourer is worthy of his hire" — is a good motto for any society to live by. There are many reasons why the minimum wage should be raised to a sensible figure in Northern Ireland. Too many people are struggling. In our surgeries and in the course of our work we meet many people every day who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to pay their electricity bills and their insurance bills. They are trying to make a decent living for themselves.
Many of us have come from working-class families and are not ashamed to say that. We have watched our parents and families struggle year after year. They are people who went out to do a decent day’s work but were not given a decent day’s wage.
I am sad that this is a reserved matter. I hope that the powers that be take note of what has been said in the Assembly. People need to have a decent minimum wage. Mr Hutchinson said that the price of electricity is higher in NorthernIreland than anywhere else in Europe. We pay more for petrol, food and insurance. Why should Northern Ireland be treated differently from other regions in the UnitedKingdom and Europe?
A lot of people claim income support, and many are put off going out to work because their hourly rate is insufficient for their needs, though some break the law by doing the double. Are we encouraging people to break the law simply because the minimum wage is so low? We need to consider this very seriously. Many people need help with their wages. Imposing a minimum wage which small businesses cannot afford to pay will cause difficulties. We need to be careful to avoid problems of this kind.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Surely that is precisely what the amendment seeks to do.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I have no problem with the amendment; it was your speech, DrBirnie, that put me off.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: It is not because you are not an Orange Tory either.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Many small companies would be burdened if we raised the minimum wage too much. We have to consider them because they have provided employment over the years. I support the motion.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. The exploitation of one person in the workforce is bad. However, it is an indictment of our society that over 100,000workers in the Six Counties receive £3·60 an hour — particularly when one considers that it is women and young people who are being exploited. This is a return to the Dark Ages — sweatshop employers are exploiting the workers through pure greed.
Multinational businesses with over £1billion annual profit worldwide come to mind. While the fat cats get fatter, the strays get thinner. We need to support workers and set the minimum wage at £5·00 an hour to lift them and their families out of the poverty trap. This will enable mothers and fathers to worry less at the end of the week about how to feed their kids and pay their bills. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sean Neeson: First, I would like to thank Mr Hutchinson and Dr O’Hagan for bringing this motion before the House. However, I am surprised that such a limited amount of time has been set aside for such an important issue. The Alliance Party has always supported the principle of the national minimum wage, and we have also supported the European social chapter. The two are inseparable. It is a basic human right for an individual to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We welcomed the introduction of the national minimum wage in April1999.
It became illegal for an employer to pay less than the minimum wage. We all know that, contrary to that legislation, a number of employers tried to avoid that by threatening their workers with the sack if they complained. Unfortunately, many young people became victims of that. The exploitation of the young is nothing new in Northern Ireland or in other societies around the world.
One of the main benefits of the Good Friday Agreement was that it created a focus on basic human rights. I look forward to the production of a Northern Ireland bill of rights that will, I hope, become a model for the rest of the world and will deal with issues such as this.
Under the present legislation, different categories with different wage levels have been established. I firmly believe that that sort of categorisation contradicts the spirit of the existing equality legislation in Northern Ireland. The Equality Commission should look at that issue very closely, because we are well acquainted with the whole question of whether things are discriminatory. That is an issue that needs to be looked at very seriously.
On 5March the Government announced that the national minimum wage would increase to £4·10 per hour from 1October2001 and £4·20 per hour from 1October 2002. Such a proposal shows contempt for those in the low-wage economy. I strongly urge the Low Pay Commission, under the chairmanship of ProfGeorgeBain, who comes from Northern Ireland and should realise and understand the problems that exist in Northern Ireland, to seriously reconsider those recommendations.
It had always been my fervent hope that the uncaring and selfish society of Thatcherism was dead and buried, especially with the election of a Labour Government. I am sad to say that I have been very deeply disappointed by the approach of the Labour Party to many of the important social issues that permeate society, both here and in the rest of the United Kingdom. At the moment, Northern Ireland is being promoted overseas by the IDB as an economy that pays affordable wages. It would greatly concern me if in fact Northern Ireland were being promoted as a low-wage economy, as it has been in the past. In trying to attract American investment to Northern Ireland, the IDB makes the point that wages in Northern Ireland are 35% lower than in America.
It is vital that all these workers receive a fair wage for a fair day’s work. I support the motion, not only because it reflects, in full, the policy put forward in the most recent Alliance Party paper on the economy, but also because it is fair and right. I oppose the amendment because it is a fudge and does not deal directly with the issue at hand.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I commend BillyHutchinson and DaraO’Hagan for bringing this motion today. I support it. I did not have to come into the Chamber to change my mind, but in relation to what EsmondBirnie said, there are a number of myths that I would like to knock on the head. Contrary to his view, the national minimum wage has not caused and will not cause a reduction in employment. All the research on the national minimum wage points to the fact that the vast majority of firms have found it affordable. DrBirnie needs to take that on board.
Secondly, it has not caused an inflationary hike in earnings or had a knock-on effect further up the pay structures.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I agree with the Member that those conclusions have been reached. However, they relate to the rate of £3·70 per hour, which will go up to £4·10 per hour. They do not apply to the rate of £5 per hour.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Being a good economist, Dr Birnie should surely know that those who carried out the research have also done the forecasting. They pointed out that the national minimum wage would not cause an inflationary hike in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. On the contrary, the research argues that it benefits employers.
When the Hastings Hotel Group’s representative provided evidence on the tourism industry to the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee last week, I asked him about the impact of the national minimum wage on his industry. He said that it was good for the industry to have a national minimum wage. If workers are paid less than this, they are poached and move from one hotel to the other. An employer who can prove that he or she is paying good wages — with good training that leads to decent skills and qualifications — will earn loyalty and hold on to workers. That system can only be useful for the tourism industry. Those are the words of an employer.
Mr Hutchinson pointed out that for too long Northern Ireland and its tourist industry have been known for low wages. This is an indictment of that industry, and we must set a national minimum wage based on realistic living costs in Northern Ireland. It was with this in mind that the Trades Union Congress set a target of £5 per hour for collective bargaining at its 1999 conference. The UK Low Pay Commission settled on this rate also.
Unfortunately, a side effect of the national minimum wage is that certain workers have been told that they are no longer allowed to keep tips. We must have regard to this. In the past those workers have been able to supplement meagre wages by tips from customers. I take pleasure in the fact that, unlike America, we have not gone down that road and here you get what you pay for. Setting wages and reassuring customers that employees are actually getting those wages prevents us from wondering what kind of tips we should be handing out and from treating workers like servants.
Who are the low-paid? They are usually people in the private sector rather than in the public sector, although the Assembly should take a look at the staff from contract agencies who work here and who do not get £5 per hour. Members have queried this. Nevertheless, the proportion of contract agency staff in the Assembly has gone up rather than down. We may need to look at our own House in the public sector before criticising the private sector. However, more often it is the private sector that is not paying the minimum wage.
The low-paid are more often manual workers than non-manual; part-time rather than full-time; and women rather than men. It is also a problem for young people, and the motion addresses this issue as it has been the crux of the problem in the past.
It is inconsistent with legislation to talk about equal work of equal value and then talk about age differentials. Pay should be based on skills and qualifications, not on age. If an individual has the necessary skills and qualifications or is in training, work and pay should follow accordingly. Therefore, on the basis of fairness alone, we should not allow such differentials to enter the equation. That would create a labour-market distortion, and historically younger workers have been seen as a cheap form of labour.
Those are some of my arguments for the creation of a national minimum wage of £5 per hour.

Mr Fred Cobain: I have listened to people talk about statistics for most of the day, but any economy has the right to pay people a minimum wage. This question involves both moral and economic issues.
There was a lot of resistance to the minimum wage being set. We are now seeing this resistance with respect to how much should be paid as the minimum wage, and that is the next hurdle we will have to jump. Those who have argued against the minimum wage have lost that argument, so the next argument will be to restrict the minimum wage as we go along. These are the arguments that some people are continuing to make.
The same arguments were made regarding a reduction in the number of hours worked. It was said that the economy could not sustain a reduction in working hours, an increase in holidays, and that it could not cater for women. All those arguments have been made before and the economy has proven itself stronger than most expected.
Unemployment in the United Kingdom is at its lowest level for 40 or 50 years. This does not mean that there is not a correlation between wages and unemployment. However, it is not the direct correlation that some are trying to make. Some people in my party have been unable to get over the fact that we have stopped putting children up chimneys in the last hundred years. There are issues that the Assembly must address. The Assembly cannot deal with the matter directly, but there are issues, such as those that Mr Hutchinson raised, that the Assembly could have a direct impact on.
Moving on to the issue of poverty, we cannot have this silo effect where we deal with wages and simply forget about the rest of the issues. During the debate on the Executive programme funds the Department for Social Development, which deals directly with people who are living in poverty, received less than 1% of the £146 million that was allocated by the Assembly. Issues that directly related to poverty were excluded.
People come here and they like to make brief, media- catching statements, which really do not mean anything. The vast majority of Members are — cross my fingers — left of centre, and the people should be benefiting from radical new ideas agreed and put into place by the Assembly. That is not happening. There are people here who have never suffered from poverty and do not look at poverty as a whole. Many of us have experienced poverty, but there are people here who have no perception of what it is like. I listen to arguments about whether the minimum wage should be £4, £4·20, or £4·30. Many of us are angered when we listen to arguments like this, especially when they come from professional people who have been born with a silver spoon in their mouths and have been helped throughout their life. These are the ones who claim that 20p an hour may have an impact on the economy.
My point is that if we are concerned about people living in poverty then the minimum wage is only one aspect. There are people living in Housing Executive homes who will be unable to have their bathrooms and kitchens replaced this year because the Assembly voted to restrict the amount of money that will be spent on that. People are dying of hypothermia because the Assembly refused to provide money for fuel poverty. In the education field, there are second and third generations who are suffering from numeracy and literacy difficulties and we have not provided money for that. I could go on for the next 25 minutes about what the Assembly could have done and yet did not do.
Many of us are deeply concerned about poverty. It is a cross-party matter. However, there are people here who are using this debate. They are hypocrites, because when it comes to issues directly related to poverty, they will refuse to vote for issues because it will, in some cases, embarrass their Ministers and Departments.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I support the principle of a minimum wage, which can and will be negotiated upwards, perhaps even higher than £5. I am no economist but I believe that the argument regarding a minimum wage having a negative impact on employment can no longer be substantiated.
We have to give people a decent wage for a decent day’s work. A minimum wage will go some way towards enabling those caught in the poverty trap of low-paid jobs and benefits to take up the challenge of a job — especially women, who fill three quarters of the low- paid jobs — and towards eradicating the exploitation of workers. It is a tool to tackle inequality by increasing the wages of the lowest paid. It is unfortunate that the under-18s have no set minimum wage; this might reflect their youth, and lack of training, but a fixed minimum wage would give young people some protection from exploitation.
The gap between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots, is increasing. The Low Pay Unit estimates that over three million households in the UK live in poverty, despite the fact that at least one member of each is in paid employment. UNICEF has ranked the UK as being in the bottom four of its league table of child poverty in rich nations. One in three children in Northern Ireland lives in poverty. Women who work full-time are still paid only 80% of their male colleagues’ earnings, and part-time female workers receive even less.
The repercussions of these fundamental inequalities spread through every aspect of society — from education and housing to basic ill health which, for many people, is inextricably linked to poverty. To improve the health of the population, it is essential to reduce these inequalities and improve the living standards of poor households.
A higher minimum wage would have further benefits — increased productivity brought about by better staff morale, a lower turnover of workers and reduced spending on benefits. Furthermore, businesses would be encouraged to invest in training. It is essential that a focus on the training of employees is an integral part of changes to the minimum wage. We need to ensure that people are trained to their highest capability and that they are given the opportunities and incentives to further their education, qualifications and careers.
We have a Department for Employment and Learning and we are all much more conscious of the need for training for life and employment. We must ensure that children who leave school can look forward to work, not the dole. Our consultation on the future of selection at 11 is very timely. If we replace selection at 11 — and I hope we will — we must replace it with a system in which all our children leave the education system with good education and job skills. We need to match the job skills to the jobs, and we need the jobs.
This is a reserved matter, but it is very important that Departments work together and look at ways in which their remits have an impact on the living standards of the population and at ways in which we can improve the conditions in which the most vulnerable people live. A more comprehensive overview must be taken of all the issues involved in employment, but I welcome the debate.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Before the Member concludes her remarks, I would like to remove any confusion she or the Assembly might have that I was supporting the substantive amendment and not the substantive motion. I am opposed to the amendment, and I would like us to be on the same wavelength in that sense.

Ms Carmel Hanna: We are, and I never doubted that.
I rushed, and I now realise that I could have had another minute. I welcome the debate in the Chamber, and I certainly support the motion.

Mr Sammy Wilson: This debate ought not to be simplified into an argument between Green and Orange Tories and all the good people on the other side. Many very important issues have been raised here today. What should the level of the minimum wage be? Various contributors have pointed out that there is no consensus on that. The Low Pay Commission, which includes some trade unionists, says that it should be £4·10. UNISON recommends £4·69. Billy Hutchinson said that it should be £5, while in Europe it is £7. We could have a lottery. Will it affect employment in a buoyant economy? The evidence we have so far is that it does not, but it may well do so in an economy which is going into recession.
There are many imponderables in all this. As Ms Hanna said, to a certain extent we are debating in a vacuum. It is a reserved matter, and we can say whatever we want. Billy Hutchinson made one very important point. He said that this was a reserved matter and that, therefore, we had to ask what this Assembly could do. When he raised that question, I thought — and I am not talking politically — that he really has a strange partner in bringing this motion forward, especially when he asked what this Assembly could do. The only Minister in this Assembly who I know has encouraged workers to take a wage that is below the minimum wage is the Sinn Féin Minister of Education.
On a number of occasions I have raised in the Assembly the question of term-time-only workers. That is something that the Minister of Education could deal with at a cost of £1·15 million. Yet on 20 June, in the only pronouncement he has made regarding those workers — workers to whom he gave support before he became a Minister — he encouraged them to accept an offer that would spread over 12 months salaries that are currently paid over 10 months. That had been put forward, and he said
"I believe that this approach presents the best way forward for all involved".
And he encouraged them to accept it.
I then received a letter from a constituent who had applied for a job with the education and library board as a school porter. The 10 months that he would have been employed for would, if holiday pay were included, have paid him a total of £6,363. Averaged over the 12 months, it would have paid him £3·49 per hour. I am using that to illustrate a point. It is fine when we talk of this as a general concept to say that we support a minimum wage of £5·00. We have already heard Sinn Féin Members talk about their support for this motion. However, when it comes down to Ministers who actually have the ability to ensure that people are paid a decent wage, it seems that the departmental mafia gets to them, and what sounds all very well in this Chamber is not actually delivered on the ground.
I have no difficulty supporting a decent wage for people who are paid low wages. It gives them dignity and encourages employers to value their employees and give them training to increase their productivity. However, we have to ask ourselves — especially given one of the proposers of this motion — whether, when it comes down to delivering, Sinn Féin is actually doing the job.

Mr David Ervine: I am not sure whether Mr S Wilson is for the motion or the amendment, but we will find out soon enough.
We have heard constantly today that this is a reserved matter. In dealing with it, let me take you on one of my wanderings. I dare say that if Mr Roger Hutchinson were here, he would take the opportunity to add something to that.
I was in Germany recently. Wages in the former East Germany are 30% below the German national average. They have achieved wage increases in the last 12 years that bring them to just 30% below.
We have to ask ourselves — and ask the First and Deputy First Ministers, the rest of the Executive and, especially, the Minister of Finance and Personnel — what arguments are going to made to the United Kingdom Government asking them when our transition period is over. When are we going to be at just 30% below the rest of the United Kingdom? When will we be 25%, 20% or 15% below? There is some naivety on the part of the proposer of the amendment when he does not realise that in laying down aspirational markers in the Assembly and, as my Colleague Mr Billy Hutchinson said, by making the differences where we can —

Dr Esmond Birnie: The East German case illustrates precisely the dangers of a rapid increase in wages relative to productivity. Unemployment there is now 30%. Does the Member want that here?

Mr David Ervine: The mark went from being worth about 2d to being worth about two quid overnight. That makes a difference. No one is asking for that. We are asking for the means to let people survive. Not only do we have the shameful circumstances of people not being paid a decent wage, but we also do not even give them permanent contracts in circumstances where they are being paid less than £5 per hour — or, at the moment, less than £4 per hour. They cannot make any judgements about their future lives based upon the degree of income that they get — which is paltry. Even if they could, they will face difficulties because finance houses and similar organisations will not take their word that they are likely to be in employment for a longer period. They get hit by a double whammy.
I accept the comment made by Sammy Wilson that there are things that we can do. There are practical measures that I need not rehearse — my Colleague has made the comment, and I am sure that Dara O’Hagan will back it up. The reality is that we have a choice. We sit here and we take what Westminster doles out to us, like some sort of nodding ducks. Then we get ourselves into an ideological nightmare over the issue of rates. If we were making the arguments sternly in a cross-party fashion, and in a joined-up-government-attitudinal way, then I believe that the Government of the United Kingdom would be very foolish to ignore us.
However, the Government of the United Kingdom have had strange experiences. Only one Unionist voted against the privatisation of gas. I imagine that if I were to look back to when the minimum wage was passed in Britain, as part of a European initiative, I would nearly bet — I may be wrong, but I doubt it — that every Unionist voted against it.
This society’s representatives have consistently offered mixed messages to the citizenry and, more especially, to the Government of the United Kingdom. That would tell me that if we can get our act together and go as a unified group of people and kick down the door of 11 Downing Street, we can definitely do better. Therefore when we see a motion like this — and Sammy Wilson identified the core element for us — what can we do about it? There are two things. There is what we can do about it and what we can make others do about it.
I advocate that Members support the motion, abandon the blocking mechanism of the amendment, and accept the reality that unless we fight strong, hard battles we are never going to be as well off as the former GDR is within Germany. We will always be second-class citizens unless we are prepared to go and demand better and more.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I have listened carefully to the debate and much has been said about the principle of the national minimum wage. However, we dare not lose sight of the end-user. The end-users in this case are people. It is a question of seeking social justice for the people. It is a question of seeking a quality of life for the people, and it is about the promotion of self-worth among the people, with the exclusion of exploitation. That is what this debate should be about.
The guiding principles that were referred to when the Low Pay Commission was given its brief in the Queen’s Speech in May 1997 are still as relevant today as they were then. The elimination of poverty, fair recognition of the labour that is supplied, the creation of a prosperous economy and the provision of a stable society are all very laudable.
Paragraph 3 of the executive summary of the second report of the Low Pay Commission states
"Several years will be needed to assess the full effects of the National Minimum Wage. But already it is clear that a large number of people have benefited. Two-thirds of beneficiaries are working women and, of these, two-thirds are part-time workers. Well over one and a half million workers were entitled to a higher pay by April 1999 because of the minimum wage, and our initial assessment is that the substantial majority of these workers, in the formal sector at least, are now receiving their entitlement."
That is a start. We must build on that to make sure that what we have achieved does not slip, and that those who are still excluded and exploited will enjoy the benefits that the rest of us are currently enjoying.
One section of the report deals with small firms. While we want to give due recognition to the needs of employees, we cannot do so in isolation from the impact that will have in small firms. The small firm has been the backbone of the Northern Ireland economy. Their contribution, even in the face of adversity and civil strife over the past 30 years, has been tremendous. Yet, the loyalty and steadfastness of those small businesses has been rewarded with yet more layers of bureaucratic administration, and the imposition of unpaid tax-collecting and benefit-paying work.
The wage departments of small firms are now collecting national insurance, income tax and student loan repayments — all in an unpaid capacity. They are now paying out statutory maternity pay, statutory sick pay and the working families’ tax credit. The burden that has been imposed on the small business employer has been horrendous.
We must take into account that there will be a straw that breaks the camel’s back. The position of small businesses has to be factored into the thinking of the national minimum pay regime. We cannot divorce one from the other. We have got to work together to produce that social cohesion and economic dynamic that will leave us with a prosperous society.
The minimum rate, whatever it will be, must be tailored to the situation in Northern Ireland and not imposed by a set of circumstances experienced elsewhere. The Assembly will have a role in influencing those charged with that decision by factoring in the unique circumstances that exist here.

Mr Roy Beggs: I support the concept of a minimum wage and the proposal to increase it. Everyone in Northern Ireland wants to move away from the generally low-wage economy towards a well-paid economy so that the value of all workers is recognised and rewarded.
I have listened carefully to what has been said in the debate, and I have not heard an explanation of why the figure of £5 per hour has been chosen. Would £6 per hour not be more appropriate? I would like to put it on record that, if there were agreed economic evidence that £6 per hour would be appropriate for Northern Ireland, I would support that. I would like to hear, from Members who have still to sum up, why the figure of £5 per hour has been selected.
Because of the criteria for choosing the figure I have suggested, in the amendment, which also stands in my name, that detailed economic research should be carried out in Northern Ireland. Research would make sure that we all fully understood the benefits and possible difficulties involved in choosing a level for the minimum wage. We should not pick the figure out of a hat.
It was mentioned that the TUC has advocated the figure of £5 per hour. Has that figure been applied to Northern Ireland in particular? I would welcome information on that from Members. Detailed research, specific to Northern Ireland, would surely be appropriate.
Several Members have spoken about the minimum wage in other European countries and have pointed out that those figures are higher than the figure proposed. However, Members have failed to mention the high levels of employment in those countries. In addition, I understand that the TUC has recommended a figure of between £4.50 and £5. It has not advocated a set figure.
I agree with Mr Wilson that if there is a Government Department in Northern Ireland that is not paying the current minimum wage, let alone considering future minimum wages, we must take the matter into our hands and address it now. During the summer months people who are paid that wage cannot claim unemployment benefit. Many of those people are in an employment trap. They may have difficulties finding other jobs to suit the times that they are available to work, and they cannot sign off because they will lose all benefit entitlements for some time. We should address those issues now and do what is within our power.
I also agree that it is hypocritical of Sinn Féin to have been a part of moving this motion, considering the fact that it has not put its own house in order.
How are we going to raise wage levels in Northern Ireland? We can do this through education, training and the upskilling of our entire workforce. My Colleagues and I have been pressing for investment in our higher and further education sector. Dr Birnie was critical, only yesterday, of the Programme for Government for not providing significant additional funds towards basic education, so that the value of all workers to the companies that employ them could be improved. The entire economy would benefit from that, and everyone could be paid more.
The economy would be able to make better use of the workforce if its knowledge and skills were developed, and everyone would be able to demand higher wages and in that way everyone’s worth would be fully recognised. So why are we limiting the figure to £5 per hour? What is wrong with £6 per hour? I would like to hear evidence and see research done that backed up the figure that is chosen.
I would like to return to some of the comments made by Sinn Féin. When you think about the number of potentially highly paid jobs that have been lost to Northern Ireland over the past 30 years as a result of terrorism, it seems hypocritical of Sinn Féin to criticise the Government or anyone else about any level for the minimum wage. Many people in Northern Ireland do not have a job today because of Sinn Féin’s terrorist activity.
If you were an outside investor, would you have chosen to create highly paid jobs in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years? I am pleased that there has been a reduction in terrorist activity and that many new investors are looking to Northern Ireland, but we must get the stability that is required here. We still have to address the 80 or more mafia gangs, many of whom have paramilitary links, so that employers can confidently come here and trade in a peaceful society where there is no blackmailing. We need a fully peaceful society in which everybody backs the forces of law and order and supports the criminal justice system.
I will welcome such a change when those on the other side of the House eventually get off their high horses and show support for a stable Northern Ireland by their actions rather than just by fancy words. Let us all have a stable Northern Ireland in which we can all progress and our children can earn even higher wages. I hope that those of you who have been listening to what I have said know that I did not move the amendment with any figure in mind — not £5, not £4·10, not £6. A proper evaluation should be considered. Other Members have said that Northern Ireland should go it alone in certain areas. What effect would it have on Northern Ireland if other parts of the United Kingdom had a different minimum wage level?
The final decision must follow an examination of the ultimate effects on our economy, so that it is the most needy who benefit. We need to ensure that poorly paid employees do not end up unemployed and in a poverty and benefits trap, as a result of which it is not worth their while to work. It is important that we encourage people into employment, to develop skills and to continue lifelong learning so that if employers do not pay the wages they need, they can look to other employers who will value their skills. The purpose of the amendment is to have an investigation into the ultimate benefits of any possible threshold level.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will try to respond to most of the Members’ points. Dr Birnie said that Mr B Hutchinson was only half right when he referred to him as an Orange Tory. His party Colleagues should start to question his credentials. Dr Birnie, in moving his amendment, spoke about the poor and their lack of employment in a condescending manner. We should move away from using such language.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the Member give way?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: No. I have only 10 minutes.
The motion is concerned with giving people decent wages that will bring them out of the poverty trap. Dr Birnie said that this is a reserved matter, and I accept that. However, the Assembly can take action by sending out a clear message that we want to be progressive and want people to receive a decent wage.
At first I thought that Mr McGrady supported the amendment, but then it became clear that he supported the motion. He talked at length about social justice and fair pay. I appreciated MrHutchinson’s contributions on fuel poverty, the poverty trap and income support.
He raised an important point, which I think was also raised by Mervyn Carrick, about small businesses and the possible burden on them. There is no reason for not being imaginative or for the Government, instead of wasting millions of pounds on questionable programmes such as New Deal, not taking the burden off small businesses and topping up their employees’ wages to £5 per hour.
Mick Murphy and Sean Neeson supported the motion, and Mr Murphy spoke about exploitation. Many Members spoke about exploited groups, young people, part-time workers and women in particular.
Mr Neeson put the issue into context, and his contribution about equality legislation and the European social chapter was very useful. He made an important point about the IDB’s web site promotion of the North of Ireland as a low-wage economy, which should concern everyone.
Monica McWilliams quite rightly said that a national minimum wage does not increase unemployment and is good for industry. The Northern Ireland Economic Council supports this stance and has stated in a report on the minimum wage that it could have a catalytic impact on a strategy aimed at improving growth and competitiveness by forcing firms to seek and explore other areas of competitive advantage — sometimes referred to as the shock effect. An increased wage rate could induce firms employing low-wage labour to improve other aspects of competitiveness such as management practice, training, the use of technology and so forth, thereby improving productivity and ultimately increasing the demand for labour.
Ms McWilliams also raised the issue of contract agencies. That should be examined, and with particular regard to contracted employees who work for the Executive and the Assembly. She painted a picture of people who are adversely affected and yet again those people were young people, women, part-time workers and manual workers — all forms of cheap labour.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Will Members please hold conversations outside the Chamber.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Fred Cobain and Carmel Hanna supported the motion, and Ms Hanna made the point that one in three children in the North of Ireland is living in poverty, which has an effect on housing, education and ill-health.
Unfortunately the contribution from Sammy Wilson was the usual tirade against Sinn Féin. That is all that needs to be said.
David Ervine stated that it is not simply a case of what we can do, but what we can make others do. That is an important message that should be coming from the Assembly — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Mr Carrick spoke about small firms. I will return to that point. Roy Beggs asked why the figure of £5 per hour was chosen. The motion says "(at least) £5 per hour" and addresses the principle of a decent living wage. Ms Hanna asked why we cannot have a figure that could be negotiated up. It does not have to be £5 per hour, and I am sure that Mr Hutchinson, as co-mover of the motion, would be more than happy to see an even higher level of wages.
Unfortunately Roy Beggs’s contribution turned into a typical rant again against Sinn Féin. People must understand that as a party we are entitled to bring forward motions — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: We will not stop doing that; we will not stop raising issues about — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: We as a party will continue to raise issues such as low wages, poverty, inequality and injustice.
We are here by dint of our having been elected. We are entitled to be here, and we are here to stay. People like you had better get used to that.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member will be reminded to direct her remarks through the Chair.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Finally, I want to give a few figures —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: No. I have only about two and a half minutes left.
I want to give a few figures that relate to what we in the Assembly can do about the issue. First, the Assembly Commission led the way when it accepted the principle of at least £5 an hour as the minimum wage for any person employed by the Assembly. That is to be welcomed. That is very progressive and sends out a positive message to the rest of society.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: No, I am sorry. I have only two minutes left, and I want to get these points in about the Executive.
That is where we can make a difference. In total, the 10 Departments employ 4,285 people who are currently earning less than £5 per hour. I will break it down by Department: the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, 47; the Department of Education, 80; the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 447; the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, 174; the Department of Finance and Personnel, 376; the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, 130; the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, 239; the Department for Regional Development, 266; the Department for Social Development, 2,192; and the Department of the Environment, 334.
The message from the Assembly should be that it supports the concept of the minimum wage. We call on all Ministers to ensure that every person employed in their Departments earns at least £5 per hour. That would be a practical start.
On the wider issues of decent wages and helping people out of the poverty trap, I urge Members to support the motion and reject the amendment.
Question That the amendment be made put and negatived.
Main question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly considers the current minimum wage threshold to be too low and supports a minimum wage level of (at least) £5 per hour and calls for the youth exemption contained in the current legislation to be abolished so that the £5 per hour rate applies to all.

Adolescent Psychiatric Services

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with concern the shortage of adolescent psychiatric services throughout Northern Ireland and urges the Minister of Health to ensure that key staff are recruited immediately with a view to meeting the community need for this vital service within two years in all parts of Northern Ireland.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
I wish to applaud the magnificent work that the current teams of psychiatric consultants do throughout Northern Ireland. I recognise the tremendous pressure that they are under because of their heavy and stressful workloads.
Aside from adult psychiatrists, I am told there are 14 psychiatric consultants for children currently working in Northern Ireland. Craigavon and Banbridge have three; Down and Lisburn have two; Holywood has two; Gransha has one; the Royal Victoria and Children’s Hospitals have three; Knockbracken Health Centre has one; and Tyrone and Fermanagh have two — making a total of 14. The underprovision of adequate child psychiatric services is a recognised problem in this profession.
I will not concern myself in any depth with either adult or child psychiatric services; I will, however, concern myself with the almost non-existent services for young people between the ages of 13 and 18. There is a very limited adolescent psychiatric service based in Belfast, the beginnings of one in Down and Lisburn and little if anything anywhere else. In other areas, adolescent patients receive attention on a grace-and-favour basis from some child psychiatrist, or an adult psychiatrist, but the service appears to be erratic and patchy. With such an acute shortage of psychiatric help for adolescents, those who require such help as a result of the troubles, physical or sexual abuse or straightforward mental illness are unlikely to receive it. There are only six inpatient beds available in Northern Ireland for adolescents requiring inpatient care.
In 1994, 242 young people were held in adult psychiatric wards — hardly the place for distressed adolescents. Levels of outpatient support and day-patient places are totally inadequate. Research has shown that 90% of adolescent suicide victims have at least one diagnosable, active psychiatric illness at the time of death, most often caused by depression, substance abuse and conduct disorders. Only 15% of suicide victims were in treatment at the time of their death. Between 26% and 33% of adolescent suicide victims have made a previous suicide attempt. In Northern Ireland the suicide rate among our young people is alarming. The last statistics taken in 1997 showed that we had 140 male and 17 female suicides, with a high percentage being young people.
I have talked about the pressure that psychiatric consultants are under, but there is also pressure and anxiety on parents when they realise that they need psychiatric help in one way or another for their loved one. I am thinking of a mother whose 10-year-old son was diagnosed with autism. She had known for several years that her son had a problem, and it was only through her persistence in asking to see a consultant that her fears were realised. When parents hear that their child has an autistic disorder they may experience fear, anger, guilt and other difficult emotions. Many families find that having professional guidance helps them to cope with this traumatic news. Children with an autistic disorder create great stress on the entire family. In a survey, families were asked which areas of their lives were most altered by the autistic child. In order of significance they listed recreational opportunities and finances. In addition, an autistic child creates stress for his or her siblings.
The next step was for the consultant psychiatrist to initiate formal assessment procedures so that the family and the education authority could address the young boy’s specific difficulties. In practice this is good, but when you have to wait for up to a year for a report, that can cause considerable anxiety. After nine months the boy’s mother called at my constituency office looking for assistance to find out how long it would take the psychiatric consultant and team to finalise her son’s report. After several phone calls and a few letters, I finally contacted the psychiatric consultant, and it was only by talking to the consultant that I realised the tremendous pressure they were under. I was informed that the delay was due to a lack of manpower and resources. They were overcome by an enormous workload, with a backlog of almost a year.
It is my perception that we need a comprehensive regional service that interconnects and interrelates. Having fragments of service within various trusts that do not relate together as a whole is no use. We need a long-term view. I appreciate that experts will not appear overnight but we must make the political commitment to ensure that appropriate training and the necessary skills are in place to do the job required.
It is not just medical consultants that are needed. We need a team of specialised junior doctors and a team of nurse specialists. We need the support services of psychologists and other professions. We need change outpatient and day-patient facilities. We need safe, secure and impartial facilities.
This will not happen overnight but we must start now. We must provide care for the very vulnerable people. We must do it in a co-ordinated and regional basis to ensure that no one in Northern Ireland is neglected and left to commit suicide because of our disinterest.
I ask all Members to support the motion.

Dr Joe Hendron: I congratulate Mr McMenamin and Dr McDonnell on bringing this most important motion before the Assembly. Earlier, some colleagues were present at the launch of a manifesto for children, which was produced by Barnardo’s, the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. That document is worth reading and I am sure many colleagues in the Assembly will be using it in forthcoming elections. The title is ‘Our Children, Their Future — A Manifesto for the Children of Northern Ireland’.
The debate is about adolescent psychiatry. Our children will become adolescents either in the next few weeks, months or within the next couple of years.
The manifesto makes various points. In Northern Ireland, one in three children lives in poverty. Three children are raped each week. Twenty-six per cent of recorded rape victims are children. More than 1,800 children are killed or injured on the roads. Twenty per cent of adolescents suffer of some form of mental health problem. Fifty per cent of looked-after children leave school with no formal qualification. Two out of five young women care-leavers were either pregnant or became pregnant within six months of leaving care. Half of disabled children and their families live in unsuitable accommodation. One in five 16- to 25-year-olds is homeless at some time. Between 50% to 70% of travellers’ children are hospitalised at some point in their childhood. Is it any wonder that we have serious psychiatric problems in a significant section of young people?
If we as an Assembly cannot look after young people — our children, adolescents and youths — we should not be here. Boys and girls, young men and young women, are emerging from years of conflict, which was not of their making. Unfortunately, abuse, disadvantage and insecurity are daily occurrences.
The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee recently published a report entitled ‘Inquiry into Residential and Secure Accommodation for Children in Northern Ireland’. There were 36 recommendations in that document, including one for a Children’s Commissioner. A couple of other points were made in that document. The provision of an additional eight-bed mental health unit as outlined in ‘Implementing Children Matter’ should be expedited. The treatment of children and young people within adult psychiatric wards should cease. That is quite a horrific thing and a terrible experience for children and young people. It is important to have preventive measures. Mental health services should be available for 16 to 18-year-olds. More emphasis needs to be placed on the development of a comprehensive range of appropriately based primary and community-care services. There must be a clear separation in hospitals of adults and adolescents.
Recently, the Committee highlighted to the Minister the case of a young girl who was placed in an adult psychiatric ward. Although the girl was moved a few days later, the Minister, in a letter dated 9 February to me as Chairperson of the Committee, stated that she could not guarantee that the girl would not be admitted again to an adult ward.
That is not a criticism of the Minister; it is just the situation, and it is wrong. We acknowledge the fact that there is funding for 10 more places in the budget for 2001-02.
Dr Ewan McEwan probably knows more about adolescent psychiatry than any other person in Northern Ireland, and he gave evidence to the Health Committee. I will mention a few relevant points that he made. Dr McEwan said — as Mr McMenamin said here today — that the adolescent psychiatric service was not regional and that there had never been a good match between requirements and resources. He went on to say
"When a young person poses a problem for responsible adults, he or she may be entered into one or more of a range of channels that could lead to youth counselling, individual therapy, fostering, special schooling, residential care, detention and so on".
In other words, there are large networks within which young people can be moved about. We say that an integrated service is required. There is an attitude in some places of "Get them in anywhere". The lack of central planning and accountability has led to piecemeal and poorly co-ordinated changes that have resulted in the remaining residential facilities coming under intolerable pressure.
We must create a positive relationship with young people with mental health needs and provide a safe environment for them. There are significant differences between young people who fall into the care system and those who fall into the criminal justice system — that is a massive subject in itself. The focus must be on Province- wide planning and integration. Agencies and Departments with responsibility for health, social services and education and, where necessary, the juvenile justice system should be involved.
Obviously, we want to avoid the detention of young people if possible, but, if it is necessary, the environment should be safe and secure, but not oppressive. We should welcome, therefore, the decision made by the Northern Ireland Office Minister, Adam Ingram, regarding the development of the Rathgael centre in Bangor.

Dr Ian Adamson: The motion addresses important issues for my constituency of East Belfast. The correlation between social deprivation and the prevalence of mental health problems, especially in young people, has been well documented.
The Eastern Health and Social Services Board’s needs-weighted formula, which includes a consideration of social deprivation, demonstrates that wards that have a high prevalence of poor mental health represent 24% of the population of the area covered by the South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust. That compares to 1·7% for the North Down and Ards Community Health and Social Services Trust , 14·7% for Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and a massive 52·9% for North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust. For the prevalence of severe mental health problems, the comparative figures are: 7·8% for the South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust, which includes Castlereagh; 0% for North Down and Ards Community Health and Social Services Trust; 1·5% for Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust; and 20·8% for North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust.
South and east Belfast and Castlereagh have traditionally been viewed as predominantly stable, middle-class areas with only pockets of social deprivation. The reality reveals a rather different picture, as highlighted by the figures for mental health problems. The area covered by the South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust is made up of 44 electoral wards, and the striking feature about them is the range of values shown for those wards on the Robson index of social deprivation.
The perception of affluence is apparently confirmed by the fact that 23 of the wards are among the least disadvantaged 20% of all Northern Ireland’s wards as measured by the Robson index. However, the affluence of some parts of the South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust area is in stark contrast to the significant social deprivation in others.
Eleven wards lie significantly above the Northern Ireland average on the Robson index, and seven of those are located among the poorest 20% of wards in the whole of Northern Ireland. A number of very affluent wards, including Cherryvalley, Orangefield, Belmont and Ravenhill, contain an enumeration district that is among the most socially deprived in the area.
The inner-city core of the area has a high concentration of social deprivation located in Shaftesbury, Blackstaff, The Mount, Island, Ballymacarrett, Woodstock and Botanic wards, while a second significant area of disadvantage is located in wards that lie on the edge of the city and stretch into Castlereagh. These housing areas include Sydenham and Inverary, Knocknagoney, Garnerville, Tullycarnet, Ballybeen, Clarawood, Clonduff, Braniel, Ardcarn, Cregagh, Belvoir, Milltown and Taughmonagh, and they consist of predominantly publicly built houses with marked deprivation.
South and East Belfast Social Services Trust area reflects a diverse range of needs in terms of age, socio- economic status and health and well-being. Client groups such as the elderly are spread across the area and have increasing needs, whether they live in poorer or in affluent communities. However, mental health problems are particularly prevalent, especially in the university area where single homelessness is concentrated, the use of illegal drugs is prevalent, and rented accommodation is available.
While there has not been a comprehensive survey of the Chinese community in south and east Belfast and Castlereagh, the Chinese Welfare Association estimates that there are between 1,500 and 2,000 Chinese people living in that area. That is one of the largest ethnic minority groups in any health and social services trust area in Northern Ireland. Research carried out by the Chinese Welfare Association, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Barnardo’s shows that this community experiences a great number of problems, such as difficulty with communication, access to services, racial harassment, social isolation, and very marked mental health problems.
Depression, particularly in adolescence, is an illness that carries a heavy personal and social burden and that may ultimately lead to suicide. It is therefore no coincidence that the highest number of male suicides in Belfast occurs in the very deprived areas of east Belfast. Although there are a range of effective physical and psychological treatments available, they are of little use if depression is not recognised or the prescribed treatment is not acceptable to the patient, as is often the case in adolescence. Therefore primary care staff must be alert to the possibility of a patient having a diagnosis of depression, even when the presenting symptoms are not apparently depressive in nature or seem to be a response to social stress. The public’s distorted beliefs surrounding the nature, stigma and treatment of depression must also be challenged if depression is to be more readily identified and appropriately managed.
I fully support this very well-timed motion.

Mr Paul Berry: I support the motion in the name of our two Friends. It is tightly worded in order to drive home the real steps that need to be taken in order to resolve a very difficult situation. I commend Dr McDonnell and Mr McMenamin for drawing attention to this very important matter.
Along with those Members who serve on the Health Committee, I have first-hand knowledge of some of the difficulties that are being raised and that no doubt will be raised later in the debate. I have been involved for some time in the difficulties that staff are having. There is very low morale among the staff, and severe problems of staff being abused — daily abuse that goes on year after year. That has often led to a high level of staff absence, which seems to currently be at least 30%.
There is an over-reliance on casual staff. It is vital that a staff ratio be drawn up immediately to expose the understaffing which exists and highlight the low level of available staff.
Members are continually hearing about new initiatives, but when these initiatives not only overlap but conflict with or contradict each other, it becomes evident that there is little or no co-ordination in the Department of Health. That must be addressed.
It is better to have fewer initiatives done well than to fire off in all directions and achieve little. There is a proverb that if you aim for nothing that is probably what you will hit. That explains the record of this area where there is one announcement after another. A few million pounds are thrown at a project, but then another initiative is introduced. As a result, the earlier initiatives find themselves underfunded and struggling to complete the task assigned to them. Problems build up, and there is then an outcry about the disgraceful situation that has resulted. The ongoing reorganisation that has been symptomatic of the confusion in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has had a detrimental effect through its creation of a sense of division — that cannot be tolerated.
Dr Hendron, the Chairman of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, mentioned Dr McEwan, who drew Committee members’ attention to the impact of the troubles on young people. Young people have also overdosed on sexually explicit images and are undermined by the powerful effects of corporate advertising and media influences. There is also an increased availability of alcohol, drugs and prostitution. That is an indication of what has to be dealt with. Can the Assembly close its ears to the problems? Can the Department of Health remain in its state of lethargy?
The motion that was ably put forward by Mr McMenamin states that key staff need to be recruited immediately with a view to meeting the community’s need for this vital service within two years in all parts of Northern Ireland.
I support the motion.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Members who moved the motion, which I support. Over a number of years, the underfunding of the Health Service has had a serious impact on services. Representatives from boards and trusts say that they do not have enough money to provide services. In addition, children’s services have become the poor second cousin. The trusts and boards seem to find it easier to take away or divert money from the children’s services because this sector is not always seen as being as important as other functions of the Health Service.
For several years it has been said that the boards and trusts have failed in their statutory duty to ensure that children’s rights are top of the agenda. I agree. I agree with Mr McMenamin that Members need to commend the Health Service staff for their tremendous work with the most vulnerable in society. We cannot forget them or be seen to be attacking them, which we are not, because they are doing very good work with limited resources.
A number of weeks ago I sent the Minister of Health a written question asking her to detail the number of children from across the board areas who had been admitted to adult wards and adult psychiatric wards over the past 12 months. The statistics were alarming. I was informed that over the last 12 months 6,401 children were admitted to adult wards and 103 were admitted to adult psychiatric wards.
There is something seriously wrong with a system under which children with a range of problems are admitted to adult wards. We are only adding to their problems by doing this. In the long term it will cost the Department more money.
I raised the issue when we debated the Programme for Government and the public service agreements from the Department at the start of March. The Department’s ‘Priorities for Action’ states that by December 2001 the number of adolescent psychiatric beds will increase from six to 16. This needs to be welcomed because it is a step forward. However, we need to be realistic and ask if it will have an impact when 103children are being admitted to adult psychiatric wards each year. What will happen to the remaining children? Should we admit them to adult wards? Should we just forget about them? What are their rights? I have stated, time and time again, in the Assembly and in the Health Committee, that investing small amounts of money properly into children’s services will have a major impact on the lives of all our children.
DrHendron mentioned that the Health Committee recently published a report on children in residential care. The issue of children in adult wards was raised by a number of people during that inquiry. The Committee recommended that the practice must stop, and it must stop now.
In a written submission to the Committee DrMcEwan stated
"mental health problems amongst disturbed and disturbing young people have been increasing against a background of reduction in availability of key resources for safe containment and treatment. A culture of ‘get them in anywhere you can find’ has threatened to overtake practitioners. A lack of central planning and accountability has permitted piecemeal and poorly co-ordinated changes to be made that have resulted in remaining residential facilities coming under intolerable pressure. The facility to dilute problems posed by severely disturbed youngsters, by distributing them over a number of placements, has considerably reduced. With reduction in ability to maintain control and to defuse potentially dangerous situations by moving young people in a timely fashion, staff of children’s homes have not always been able to maintain safety or retain the respect of youngsters. There has been no choice but to concentrate excessive numbers of very disturbed young people in fewer centres, resulting in the balance between containment and constructive intervention tilting in favour of the former."
Dr McEwen highlighted that we need to be aware of the view of "get them in anywhere".
The Committee, in its report, also called for the appointment of a Children’s Commissioner. I welcome the Executive’s recent announcement of the appointment of the Commissioner, which is out for consultation. However, we cannot sit back and allow this to take months. If a Children’s Commissioner were properly and independently appointed, then at least children and young people would have someone to ensure that their rights take centre stage.
I thank the proposers for moving the motion. It is a timely motion. I also welcome the Minister’s presence so that she can take on board the points that have been raised by Members today. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David Ford: In the face of such unanimity so far, it will perhaps be no surprise to say that I also express my support for the motion and congratulate MrMcMenamin and DrMcDonnell for bringing it forward. If I have any criticism with the motion it is in the reference to the Minister of Health rather than using her correct and full title. I say that probably because of my background in social services where I had connections with childcare and psychiatry. There is a need to look at the entire range of services and professionals who have duties in this area, and not consider it, as the motion does not in other respects, as being too much of a medical issue.

Sir John Gorman: Although the motion does not include the words "Social Services and Public Safety", I promise to use them when I put the Question.

Mr David Ford: I am glad you are better informed than the proposers of the motion.
We need to look at the prevalence of psychiatric difficulties. Sometimes people forget that up to 20% of children may suffer reasonably severe psychiatric problems — behavioural and emotional disturbances being the most frequent. It is something that often gets swept aside and is regarded in terms of the numbers who require some form of acute admission rather than numbers who may be suffering from very severe problems but do not require that level of intervention.
We also know that childhood depression may lead to further problems in adulthood if it is not dealt with. It is not just the problem for children and adolescents; it is the future problems that are being stirred up. We have clearly seen in recent years the dreadful and dramatic increase in the number of suicides, particularly amongst teenagers and those in their early 20s.
There is a major issue which, as yet, we have failed to address. The first point we need to look to is the question of how we integrate children with psychiatric problems into childcare services and regard that as part of the problems children have growing up and not as a peculiar offshoot of psychiatry which does not really need to get attended to. If we think of them like that it results in what Sue Ramsey has just been talking about — the "Get them in somewhere at any cost" model of care. However, that is not care and completely fails to meet the children’s needs.
Of course, when adolescents need to be admitted they almost inevitably end up in an adult acute psychiatric ward because there is no suitable alternative, or in a place where people, who are of more mature years, may well be displaying some very difficult behaviour. That may further traumatise the children. Secondary care is not the place that children should be referred to in the first instance, but it is what happens when GPs do not have the knowledge or any alternative facility. They refer the children to the wrong specialism for dealing with adolescents with psychiatric difficulties.
I think back on my own experiences as a social worker. There was one particular young man who was going through some family difficulties arising out of a not particularly turbulent adolescence, but one which clearly required a level of intervention. He ended up in an acute hospital ward because there was nowhere else and being treated by a psychiatrist who, as far as I could tell, had no qualifications or particular expertise in adolescent psychiatry. He was the district psychiatrist for the area from which the young man came. There were nurses on the ward who gave considerable levels of care but outwith their proper professional training and expertise — none of them had any training in adolescent psychiatry. Whatever help was given was by individuals’ hard work and serious effort rather than by people who were properly trained and resourced for the care the young man needed.
There are far too many adolescents admitted to acute psychiatric wards — a practice which is, in this century, ethically, morally, clinically and quite probably legally unacceptable. How can we say that we are meeting children’s needs when we are in the position where the clinical perspective is a lack of specialist training in child adolescent psychiatry? There are far too few doctors, nurses or social workers who have the proper experience. It is hardly clinically effective. It is more likely to be clinically damaging and have very long-term implications.
If we look at the issue of the duty of care which trusts have to these young people, how can we say that we are meeting their needs for care if we are placing them in inappropriate environments? Where does the current package in many cases stand with regard to the Human Rights Act 1998? How can we have respect for private and family life if we put children in utterly inappropriate placements on many occasions? How can that meet their long-term needs?
The Minister has acknowledged to me, as to others, that there has been historic underfunding of both childcare and psychiatry. It is clear from what is being said by many others in this debate, Mr Berry and Ms Ramsey in particular, that where adolescents have psychiatric problems they seem to suffer all the difficulties of both childcare and psychiatry combined. The resources for the range of services needed do not exist.
The first thing we must do is to stipulate that they should not be admitted to adult psychiatric wards. It is unacceptable, and there need to be alternative facilities. There must be greater action on waiting times so that people get the specialist services they need. That means better training for GPs and a range of community nurses, as well as increased resources for those providing the services.
There should be an investigation of whether nursing staff in accident and emergency departments are properly trained to deal with the aftermath of attempted suicides. A great deal of self-harm comes to light in A&E departments that can only, at this stage, be treated at a superficial level and does not lead through to the long- term services that are required. Fundamentally, there needs to be a much greater focus on the child or the adolescent themselves.
The service must go far beyond the issue of inpatient services. There needs to be a fully comprehensive service. The two residential facilities proposed for young people are welcome, as far as they go. However, can we have an assurance today that we will actually see the right therapeutic environment and not just a mini-hospital? It is not enough to say that we provide proper inpatient facilities. We need specialist teams working across the community as well. Too many of these adolescents do not require inpatient care and it is not beneficial to them. We need to recognise the dangers of hospitalisation and over-dependence on the hospitalisation model, and build an integrated team of specialists who can address the issues at a primary care level in the community and build the services that these vulnerable young people so badly need.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I also commend Dr McDonnell and Mr McMenamin for putting down this motion. We have already raised this in the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee. Our concerns grow daily when we realise what we are facing. However, not all of the problems should be placed at the door of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. She inherited a legacy of past problems.
In Britain, Government Ministers have pledged £84 million for the development of child and adolescent mental health services. I want to know what our new Government in Northern Ireland has pledged towards these particular services. As has been said repeatedly, our concern is that mental health services for adults, adolescents and children have ended up with little money prioritised. As a consequence, we are storing up huge problems for the future.
I am not going to repeat the figures that Ms Ramsey and the sponsors of the motion have already introduced, except to say that an issue that has not attracted much attention and needs to is eating disorders. A recent report by Dr Clare Adams, an adolescent psychologist, and Dr Ian McMasters stated that 1,500 young people in Northern Ireland suffer from anorexia nervosa and 17,000 young people have been diagnosed with bulimia.
A recent report called ‘Minding Our Health’, which was a draft strategy for promoting mental and emotional health in Northern Ireland, did not mention eating disorders at all. I am also critical of the ‘Investing for Health’ document, which has not prioritised it either. I am not suggesting for one minute that the other areas raised are not important, but I am trying to draw attention to the fact that we do not have sufficient research on adolescent and child mental health problems.
If we had sufficient research, all these issues could be taken into account. If you do not have the information, you do not know what resources to direct towards it. This is a plea for accurate information in Northern Ireland on this issue. We know that we have a higher number of young people, particularly under the age of 15 — and the trend is moving upwards. We differ from England and Wales in that respect, so we need more funding for research rather than less.
Likewise, because of the 30years of the troubles, we have extra special needs here. I am concerned when I read some of these documents, particularly ‘Commissioning Inpatient Psychiatric Services for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland’. They frequently draw attention to the issue of disorders. One of the points that has been made — one that cannot be made often enough — is that more effort should be put into explaining the behaviour rather than emphasising the behaviour itself.
If we were to attempt to explain the behaviour, to outline the context of that behaviour and hence perhaps to extend the debate beyond the medicalised model of psychiatry by placing it in a more holistic model that would identify the background, the history of neglect, the abuse and the forms of trauma — rather than just concentrating on disorders — then we might get closer to the extent of the problem.
It is probably accurate to use DrMcEwan’s description of young people as being both troubling and troubled. If we keep that in mind we will realise what we can do in relation to therapy and treatment. It also extends into our communities in the areas of prevention and promotion.
Because the motion refers to psychiatry in particular, I want to focus on that. I am concerned that perhaps we should not be putting the matters of children and adolescents together. We need to make a large distinction between children’s issues and those relating to adolescents. Has the Minister accurate information on the resources and numbers of psychiatrists in place in relation to those working with children and those working with adolescents? How far short of what we need do they fall?
The other group that is greatly neglected is that of 18 to 25-year-old people. Perhaps they are the most neglected of all — they may not fall into either of those categories, but neither do they fall into an adult category. Sue Ramsey should be commended for asking questions about the numbers who have been admitted to adult psychiatric wards. I am also greatly concerned about that. I have a further concern. What we should do if they are not admitted to adult psychiatric wards? Where are they going to go? What is the alternative? The point is made in a recent report that the reluctance of and, on occasions, the refusal by, adult services to admit these adolescents has often led to a potentially dangerous situation having to be managed in the community at high personal cost to staff. It seems that we are between the devil and the deep blue sea on this one.
If they are admitted to adult psychiatric wards, that is open to enormous criticism — and rightly so. If they are not admitted to adult psychiatric wards, enormous potential for dangerous situations in the community is created. That is why we need to address this issue. EwanMcEwan said that it is often more by chance than by design that young people are admitted to any forms of treatment.
We should not have second-class citizens in this country. It should not be a matter of whether people are lucky enough to get into an inpatient unit or the type of inpatient unit that they get into. I ask the Minister to address this issue. Is it also the case that Northern Ireland does not have any adolescent forensic psychiatry services? What happens to these young people, and where are their needs addressed? I have been to the prison and seen a young woman there. I have realised that this is a disaster in Northern Ireland. Clearly, such people should not be in prison. They have psychiatric needs, but no one will visit them, address their needs or assess their needs from a psychiatric point of view. Perhaps if that had been done they would not have been in prison in the first place. Northern Ireland will probably stand indicted — particularly in relation to the new European Convention on Human Rights — for currently having young people under the age of 18 in Maghaberry Prison.
We probably need a composite inpatient, day-patient and outpatient service, with follow-up and aftercare services. The point has been made that the mix of the small number of beds that we have for adolescents falls far short of what is required. There are only six beds — five in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board and one purchased by the Western Board. I commend the Minister for having increased the number of beds by 10 to 16 as a priority action, but will we meet that target by December 2001? That question really needs to be asked. Will the trained staff and all the mental health practitioners be in place to have those beds up and running? Where will they be?
I have to say, however, that the young people’s centre should be commended as an example of good practice. I am concerned that the commissioning of inpatient psychiatric services for children and young people in Northern Ireland had to go to the young people’s unit in Edinburgh — which has only just opened — when the young people’s centre was at our own front door. Why? The young people’s centre has been running for more than 10 years; it has had enormous evaluation, is very proud of its practice and has an awful lot to offer in relation to what works and what does not. The centre makes the point that because it has only six beds, new patients who are very troubled have to be put alongside those who are more settled. That does not work, and if they had more beds and a purpose-built unit, they could provide the comprehensive services alongside the specialist services they need. If multifactorial issues arise in treatment they need to be addressed, as do specialist issues, such as those which may arise when dealing with people who are self-harming or those with eating disorders.
Many issues need to be raised in relation to what we are doing in the area of child and adolescent psychiatry. I would like to raise one in particular. That is the concern of the Royal College of Nurses that in Northern Ireland, there is insufficient staff training and professional development. We have had to send staff to England to be trained. That may be one reason why we may not meet our December 2001 target.
Adolescents need space and recreational facilities as well as educational facilities. In our Committee, we pointed out that educational facilities for those in care have been withdrawn. It is absolutely necessary for young people to have educational facilities if they are to go back into the community and live normal lives.
The working party has said that we need 25 beds, and 16 falls short of that. Is there a target date? That number has been criticised. Given the demographics and the troubles, it should be 33. Sixteen is only half of that.
It seems that we are continuing to shore up an enormous problem. We need a workforce planning strategy. Is there one in place, with targets and timetables for the longer term beyond this year?
Again I commend the Minister for setting a target for this year — concerned as I am that we may not reach it — but I would like to hear what we are going to do after this year. Is Northern Ireland meeting the high standards that have been set by the National Health Service for young people who are being treated in therapeutic communities — that is probably the best way to put it — rather than in the current stigmatised fashion? Clearly, we need a comprehensive regional strategy for the future. Northern Ireland really does need to start caring for the young mind.

Sir John Gorman: I am sure the Minister will have taken note of your request for me to ask her to deal with the subjects you raised.

Mrs Iris Robinson: The motion is timely, and I support it. This is a very serious subject and one on which I welcome the opportunity to speak. The area of mental health is a poor relation when it comes to funding. It appears that our children and adolescents fare worse in the pecking order, given the horrendous stories related to us as elected representatives. The recommendation, for example, for an increase of 10 adolescent places to 25, while welcome, leaves a shortfall of some nine places.
No matter how many increases there are, there is still the serious question of staffing. That has not been given the attention it deserves. The tragedy of our modern society is that what we are witnessing was so predictable. When there is a wholesale breakdown of morality, the family and of standards, it is inevitably reflected in the casualties of adolescent behaviour. That we see an increase in such is not only costly but a sad reflection on modern living.
Some disturbing realities were also presented to the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee. A negative culture in that Department of "Get them in anywhere you can find" is not the best approach. It reflects all too often the simple fact that the state makes a bad parent. It also reflects a desire to regiment everyone.
The complexity and severity of mental health problems, the lack of resources, the lack of planning and the piecemeal changes have all contributed to a sense of helplessness and to a situation in which the worst get the bulk of whatever there is and the rest are put on a very long and growing waiting list.
There is also the serious issue of the lack of specific definitions, which those involved in that area need to tackle. In the Committee’s response to the Department, we stressed the need to separate adolescent and adult patients. Too many incidents have occurred because of the failure to do that and the poor record of resolving that problem. That must be tackled urgently. The Minister needs to tell us what she intends to do.
There are serious questions about the Department itself. It seems to be incapable of covering all in its remit. The evidence can be seen in how few recommendations are introduced. Take the report ‘Children Matter: A Review of Residential Child Care Services in Northern Ireland’. Most of the recommendations have not been implemented. That is a serious charge to make against the Department. It raises a central question about the reports from the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee. How many of its recommendations will be implemented? Are we not debating the motion because of this ongoing failure to have previous recommendations implemented?
The lack of places has meant that present problems will continue until sufficient places are provided. The closure of one centre after another has left health professionals without anywhere to send those in need. All that is compounded by a reduction in places in the residential sector. That reduction, which has been ongoing for some time without being paid much attention, is now viewed as having a direct impact on adolescent treatment. Little wonder that Dr Ewan McEwan makes the comment that, given the balance of risk, it is sometimes a better option to place adolescents in an adult unit. However, given the current pressure for adult places, there is little or no hope of putting adolescents into adult units. Adolescents therefore have two difficulties: few places for themselves and even fewer for them in adult units. We are in a catch-22 situation. That is not an ideal situation since what we want are more places for adolescents themselves.
The resolution of the problem is really simple — the Minister should take on board what the Committee has recommended and go through our report on residential and secure accommodation line by line. It sets out in simple terms what is needed. The recommendations are on page 7. We do not need any more reviews.
I support the motion.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Dr Mac Dónaill agus leis an Uasal Mac Meanman as deis a thabhairt dúinn an ganntanas i seirbhísí síciatracha d’ógánaigh a phlé.
Thóg Comhaltaí ceisteanna tábhachtacha faoi na seirbhísí seo le linn na díospóireachta agus ina gcuid oibre sa Tionól. Tá mé ar aon intinn leo faoin a lán dá n-ábhair bhuartha agus tá mé tiomanta do na seirbhísí d’ógánaigh ar a bhfuil fadhbanna meabhairshláinte a fheabhsú agus a mhéadú.
Tá meabhairshláinte páistí agus ógánach ina hábhar mór imní. Tá fadhbanna meabhairshláinte coitianta i measc páistí agus ógánach. Ar na neamhoird mheabhairshláinte a bhíonn ar ógánaigh tá neamhoird mhothúchánacha, neamhoird fhorásacha, neamhoird itheacháin, siondróim iarthráma agus neamhoird shíocóiseacha. Meastar go bhfualaingíonn idir 10 agus 20 faoin chéad de dhaoine óga galar acu seo ag am ar bith, agus tá seo ag dul chun leitheadúlachta. Tá níos mó aird á tarraingt ar thionchar gearrthréimhseach agus fadtréimhseach na bhfadhbanna seo ar chuid mhaith gnéithe de shaol páistí agus fosta ar an chontúirt go dtitfidh siad i ngalar meabhrach agus iad fásta. Táthar imníoch fosta faoin éileamh ard atá ag sárú soláthar reatha na seirbhísí meabhairshláinte.
Cúis bhuartha dúinn é gur tugadh isteach den chéad uair ar meán beagán faoi 130 duine óg idir 14 agus 17 in aghaidh na bliana chuig ospidéil mheabhairghalair sna blianta 1996 go 1999. Mar bharr ar an bhuaireamh, tugadh a mbunús isteach i mbardaí síciatracha aosacha. Le 12 mhí anuas tugadh 103 duine óg faoi bhun 17 isteach i mbardaí síciatracha aosacha.
Tá ag méadú ar an imní faoi sholáthar do othair chónaitheacha ógánta. Faoi láthair, níl ann ach aon saoráid sé leaba amháin i nGairdíní an Choláiste, Béal Feirste. Glacann na sé leaba seo daoine óga idir 14 agus 18: cheannaigh Bord an Oirthir cúig cinn agus cheannaigh Bord an Iarthair ceann amháin. Fágann an t-ardéileamh ar na leapacha seo gur minic nach dtig le hothair teacht a bheith acu orthu. Cé nach mbíonn seirbhísí cónaitheacha de dhíth ach ar bheagán othar, is cuid riachtanach iad mar sin féin den tsamhail ceithre shraith don mheabhairshláinte ógánach — samhail ar a bhfuil glacadh coitianta.
I thank Dr McDonnell and Mr McMenamin for giving us this opportunity to discuss concerns about the shortage of adolescent psychiatric services. Members have raised important issues about those services, both during the course of this debate and in their work in the Assembly. I share many of their concerns and am committed to improving and increasing services for adolescents with mental health problems.
Child and adolescent mental health is a major area of concern. Mental health problems are common in children and adolescents. I am clear on the range of mental health disorders faced by adolescents and the need for us to ensure that the services are in place to deal with them. They include emotional and development disorders, eating disorders, post-traumatic syndromes and psychotic disorders. It has been estimated that between 10% and 20% of young people are affected at any one time, and the prevalence rates are rising.
There is a growing awareness of the short- and long-term impact of those problems on many aspects of children’s lives and on the risk of later adult mental illness. There is also concern about the high level of demand, which, as many Members have said, outstrips current mental health service provision. It is a disturbing statistic that in the years 1996-99 there has been an average of just under 130 first admissions of people aged 14 to 17 to mental illness hospitals per year. More worryingly — and Members also pointed this out — most of those young people have been admitted to adult psychiatric wards.
As I said in a recent written reply to Sue Ramsey, in the last 12 months 103 young people under 17 have been admitted to adult psychiatric wards. Concerns about adolescent inpatient provision have, understandably, been increasing. Currently, there is only one six-bed adolescent inpatient facility, situated in College Gardens in Belfast. These six beds admit young people between the ages of 14 and 18. Five of the beds were purchased by the Eastern Board and one was purchased by the Western Board. The high demand for these beds means that patients are regularly unable to gain access.
Turning to some of the specific points raised by Members, I recognise the many problems relating to suicide and parasuicide. It is necessary to invest across a range of mental health services in order to target those persons viewed as high risk and also the much larger number viewed as low risk. In this financial year I have invested an extra £2 million in community mental health services and inpatient services across the range. That will include services for adolescents.
At this stage it is not possible to assess accurately the success of those interventions, but I agree with Members that the range of factors that can influence suicide, such as unemployment and social deprivation, has to be tackled across society.
David Ford and Sue Ramsey raised the issue of the interface between mental health services for young people and specialist residential care provision. The issues relating to residential and community-based services for children with psychological and psychiatric needs will be taken forward through, among other things, the future work of the Children Matter task force.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s policy on young people who are survivors of abuse in adult psychiatric wards is that adolescents should not be accommodated with adults. However, in some specific cases where that is unavoidable, steps should be taken to secure the young person’s welfare and to protect him or her from any form of abuse.
Inclusion of a secure treatment capability within the additional beds announced in the Programme for Government should help to ensure that younger people will be admitted less often to adult wards. It is indeed, as Monica McWilliams pointed out, difficult for us that adolescents are currently admitted to adult wards. We do not want to see that. We are also faced with the difficulty, as are others throughout the service, of how to deal adequately with those adolescents in the absence of any other provision.
Areas of social deprivation, and possible preventative measures, were also mentioned. Research has shown clearly that socially disadvantaged children have a higher risk of mental health problems in childhood and later life. Members mentioned a range of stresses and their impact on the life of a child.
A variety of social interventions aimed at improving the health and social well-being of children in deprived areas have been well evaluated. In particular, high-quality school and nursery education has resulted in improvements in self-esteem and motivation, social behaviour and other educational and social benefits.
As part of the Programme for Government we are also committed to working with the Department of Education to improve, among other things, mental health education in schools. The Sure Start programme has been resourced to protect children from developing mental health problems by giving them a better start in life. As Members have said, it is up to us to ensure that a range of services is provided for children and adolescents as well as for adults.
Current service provision for educational and rehabilitation facilities for adolescents, particularly adolescent inpatients, has been criticised, but all future planning for services will include every agency involved in providing the appropriate rehabilitation and recreational facilities for that age group. The planned units will include dedicated education facilities.
Through Monica McWilliams’s question I have been informed about the Chief Medical Officer’s review group. Members of the group visited the young people’s centre and interviewed Dr McEwan. The team also went to Edinburgh to learn from good practice elsewhere. I remind Members about the range of difficulties we are facing. That review was specifically concerned with inpatient services, but other measures have been also taken to look at other services.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the Minister agree that in the appendix to that report costings were based on the Edinburgh example rather than on information from the 10 years’ experience of the young people’s centre? If we are to plan a new unit, it might be more appropriate to base the costings on what that centre reckoned would work for Northern Ireland.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Obviously I do not dispute the points made by Ms McWilliams on the appendix to that report. However, I stress again that both centres were visited and that Dr McEwan was specifically interviewed at the time of the report.
Although these inpatient services are required by only a small number of patients, they are an essential part of the widely accepted four-tier model for adolescent mental health. The first tier will deal with relatively minor emotional and behavioural difficulties, and non-specialist practitioners within primary care will provide that treatment and care. The key action is to develop the adolescent mental health skills and knowledge of GPs, health visitors and social workers.
The second tier will deal with moderately severe problems that require attention from professionals who have been trained in child and adolescent mental health. The priority is to establish mental health practitioners who will work within the primary care setting.
The third tier will deal with severe and complex mental health problems that require a multi-disciplinary team approach from specialist child and adolescent mental health practitioners. The health and social services boards are addressing this.
The fourth tier will deal with the most severe, persistent and complex problems and will require highly specialised inpatient and/or outpatient services.
One of the effects of the lack of inpatient spaces is the necessity to admit adolescents to adult health facilities. No one wants adolescents to share psychiatric wards with adults. Apart from the obvious difficulties that are inherent in that practice, the patients do not receive treatment that is targeted at their specific needs. The areas of particular concern are a lack of group work with similarly aged patients, a lack of structured daily activity and access to education, and the additional stress, as Members have pointed out, caused by the presence of mentally ill adult patients.
The Department’s policy statement on child and adolescent mental health, issued in January 1999, recommended that adult-based provision for adolescents should cease as soon as possible. My aim is to achieve that and I have outlined the steps that we are taking to bring that about. That statement also set health and social services boards two specific targets. Mr McMenamin talked about the need for a long-term view, and others spoke about the need for an overview.
The two targets set in 1999 were the review of the existing provision and the identification of needs that had not been met, and a commissioning strategy for delivering services based on identified needs and meaningful and measurable objectives. The first task has been carried out and everyone expressed concern at the lack of specialist inpatient facilities for adolescents. Mental health professionals, users and carers also expressed similar concerns.
The Chief Medical Officer, working with the directors of public health from all four health and social services boards, commissioned a review of inpatient facilities for children and adolescents. The report ‘Commissioning Inpatient Psychiatric Services for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland’, which Ms McWilliams mentioned, was completed in October 2000. It recommends that there should be 25 inpatient beds for adolescents and that those should be split into two inpatient units. There are six beds currently available.
The report also recommends that the inpatient places should be supported by an appropriate level of community- based services. I am sure that some young people who have been admitted as inpatients could have been better treated in the community, if the appropriate services had been available. The Programme for Government set a target of securing 10 additional beds by December 2001, which would leave a shortfall of nine. I will be bidding for additional resources to secure those additional beds.
The December 2001 target is very challenging, as are all of the target dates in the Programme for Government. However, I will ensure that undertaking the work that is required to obtain the additional beds will be a top priority for me and my Department.
I am aware that there is a shortage of staff trained in dealing with adolescents with mental illness. Dealing with such adolescents requires specific skills, and there is a clear requirement to understand the needs of adolescents and how those needs can be met. Training staff to develop the appropriate skills is the key to the development of an effective and efficient service. The Department has examined training necessities. There are four new trainee consultant psychiatrists who specialise in child and adolescent psychiatry coming forward each year, and the intention is to have up to 20 consultants by 2008.
There are 17 nurses involved in university training in child and adolescent psychiatry, and each year six social workers are trained in child and adolescent psychiatry. I take the point that the matter goes beyond consultant psychiatrists and that there is a need for other specialist trained staff. The resources to establish the 10 additional beds have been allocated to the health and social services boards.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is reviewing the many comments that were received following the circulation of the report on 15 January to the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, the boards and trusts, the relevant professional groups, voluntary agencies and user and carer groups. Most of those who have replied to date are content with the proposal that there should be two child and adolescent mental health units — one in the east and one in the west — although some replies advocated one regional unit. A working group representative of all interested parties will determine the preferred provider, or providers, in a way that will take account of health and social needs, accessibility and equality.
I have secured resources of £1 million to provide the 10 additional adolescent psychiatric beds and a further £1 million for 35,000 additional consultations for all age groups, including adolescents, with community mental health teams. I see that as a start, but I accept that much more is needed, and I will continue to do my best to ensure that the needs of this particularly disadvantaged group of young people are met.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Minister for her attendance and her interest. I hope that we can sustain all the developments that she mentioned in the coming years. I acknowledge the goodwill of the Department and, in particular, the Minister, but I am troubled by a feeling of déjà vu. I was one of a group of people who were involved in a similar debate 15, 16 or perhaps 17 years ago, when there was no service. That debate led to the setting up of the young people’s centre run by Dr Ewan McEwan in College Gardens. I do not think that we have made enough use of him, but I will leave that matter for the moment. I also want to thank Mr McMenamin, Dr Hendron, Dr Adamson, Mr Berry, Ms Ramsey, Mr Ford, Ms McWilliams and Mrs Robinson for taking part in the debate: I am heartened.
I became involved with the subject simply because I still try to do a bit of general practice, and I noticed a significant increase in the number of teenagers with a degree of distress and mental illness. Mr McMenamin became involved in the debate because of the approaches made to his constituency office. I subsequently learned that the demand for adolescent psychiatric services has increased by about 50% in the past 12 months. We are all well-intentioned, and we pay lip service to children’s issues in the Assembly from time to time. Adolescents may not be the babies or young children on whom we usually focus our attention, but these bigger children — 13 to 18-year-olds — are, in many ways, just as vulnerable.
Adult psychiatric services have undergone a major revolution in the past 20 years. Many people who were previously institutionalised now live fairly stable lives in hostel accommodation. Child psychiatry has been around for a while, and although it leaves a bit to be desired, there certainly seems to be a reasonable service. I emphasise that good-quality mental health provision is a much wider issue than just the elimination of the gross illness that strikes us so dramatically. There is a lot of illness and poor mental health that we never see. We are, perhaps, dealing with the tip of the iceberg.
Adolescents in psychiatry, by and large, have been falling between two stools. I do not want to repeat what has already been said about teenagers being shoved into adult beds when it is totally inappropriate. In other cases, child psychiatrists have seen some individuals but not others. It is very much on a grace-and-favour basis.
The serious point that has emerged here that frightens me is that, in some cases, up to 20% of young people in parts of the community can be affected. Perhaps briefly, if only for a few weeks, they have a dip, a point of stress or illness. Adolescents have the same range of mental illness that adults have. However, these illnesses are further compounded by the stresses and strains of growing up and of being a teenager.
It is a very specialist field, and one that we, collectively, at a political level, have severely neglected. There is one small unit serving Belfast and it struggles along with one consultant and a handful of dedicated staff. Recently, I understand, a consultant has been appointed in Lisburn, but that service is limited and, to a large extent, is fairly disconnected from the Belfast service. The problem is that we need a vision for the whole regional service. It is not acceptable to have a bit of a service in Lisburn and a bit more in Belfast or a bit in north and west Belfast, and a bit in south-east Belfast. This service needs to be regionalised and must be a comprehensive, seamless service that works and delivers the best possible support it can to these vulnerable people.
We need all of the components, and I agree with many of the structures that the Minister has outlined. We need the proper outpatient, day-care and in-care patient level of service. However, I emphasise that the in-care level needs to be subdivided because the illnesses and the types of problems are very different. It encompasses such a wide range, as the Minister outlined — for example, we have some very timid and nervous people perhaps suffering from anorexia and others who are psychotic and quite aggressive. It is difficult, or certainly not good for either party, to mix them. Some are drug addicts or are perhaps going through a withdrawal phase when they could become quite psychotic. Many have been sexually abused and, as a result, are disturbed — that is perhaps one of the biggest groups. Others have been mentally and physically abused. I do not want to lay a lot of emphasis on the issue, but some would perhaps be sexually aggressive and a serious threat to the more vulnerable female patients that might be there.
Also, without being sensationalist, we do have situations where adolescents have been involved in murders and are caught up in a whole forensic web and legal matters. It is impossible to put all these elements together in one comfortable unit. There are many experts out there, but we need to be able to get it together.
I want to echo something that Ms McWilliams said earlier. She said that we do not have the research, the quality of information or the reliable statistics on which we can build a service, and we badly need that. The structures of the service need not only to be comprehensive and coherent but also adaptable to individual needs. I suggest that a community-based service should be located in every trust and alongside that perhaps a degree of day care.
I am glad I heard someone mention 25 beds, which is an increase on the 16 that we should have by December 2001. I would like to see us setting ourselves a goal of 25 beds. However, the 25 beds will be totally inadequate if they cannot be subdivided into small units of twos and threes. I favour one regional unit because we are not going to be able to bring the proper therapeutic support to two or more centres.
There is a severe danger in shoving a load of disturbed teenagers in to one big place in that some of them could make others worse. They must be housed in comfortable, apartment-sized units where compatible people can fit together, and within that, there needs to be a proper therapeutic structure.
It would probably be very narrow to look at Belfast only; I would apply a similar theory across the board. In the Eastern Board area we probably need one adolescent psychiatrist and one child psychiatrist for every trust, and perhaps two other consultants at a central level. Those at a consultant level should be fully supported by specialist nurses, because well-trained nurses can be every bit as useful as — and in some cases more useful than — the psychiatrist or the medically trained person.
There are a number of other things that I would like to mention, but I do not want to go on. I am very glad to have been able to participate in the raising of this issue today. However, I am concerned about the need for an adolescent drug and substance abuse service. We have a service for people who are 20 — certainly 18 — or older, but we do not have one for adolescents. We have no eating disorder service for people who are 17 or younger. There is no support service for adolescents who have been sexually abused. Edinburgh has been mentioned as a best-practice model. Edinburgh is good, but I think that we also have a jewel in the crown in our own centre in College Gardens, if it could only be expanded. The fact that we do not have a forensic service for adolescents was mentioned earlier. Someone should be looking at the interface between the law and psychiatry.
Having said all that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that we have brushed only the tip of the iceberg. There are many young people out there that never quite come up on the screen. There are young people out there who are labelled as being educationally difficult, and they fall within the remit of the education boards or become statemented. Many of those children are semi-disturbed, or quite a bit more than semi-disturbed, but not disturbed enough to annoy the rest of us, and we tend to ignore them. There is a major problem out there, and until we get on top of it, we will be doing our young people a major disservice.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank you, the Minister and others who facilitated this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with concern the shortage of adolescent psychiatric services throughout Northern Ireland and urges the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that key staff are recruited immediately with a view to meeting the community need for this vital service within two years in all parts of Northern Ireland.
Adjourned at 6.04 pm.